USA - Stadium and Arena Development News [Archive]

Sounder

April 18th, 2004, 08:09 PM

1. Michigan Stadium - Ann Arbor, MI - 107,501 seats

http://naomi2001.50megs.com/images/uofm1.jpg

2. Beaver Stadium - State College, PA - 107,282 seats

http://www.psu.edu/ur/presspass/images/beaver_stadium.jpg

3. Neyland Stadium - Knoxville, TN - 104,079 seats

http://www.collegecharlie.com/files/tenn_stadium.jpg

4. Ohio Stadium - Columbus, OH - 101,568 seats

http://www.centralohio.com/ohiostate/football/season2003/gallery/stadium/photo02.jpg

5. Rose Bowl - Pasadena, CA - 98,636 seats

http://www.tournamentofroses.com/photos/rb_birdseye.jpg

6. LA Memorial Coliseum - Los Angeles, CA - 92,000 seats

http://www.thisistheusfl.com/USFL/USFL%20Stadiums/LA%20coliseumtitle.jpg

7. Tiger Stadium - Baton Rouge, LA - 91,600 seats

http://www.2cuz.com/fansgate/gallery/stad05.jpg

8. Sanford Stadium - Athens, GA - 86,520 seats

http://www.pbase.com/image/22986699.jpg

9. FedEx Field - Landover, MD - 86,484 seats

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NFL/WashingtonRedskins/aerial.jpg

10. Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, AL - 86,063 seats

http://www.pbase.com/image/22924983.jpg

11. Stanford Stadium - Palo Alto, CA - 85,500 seats

http://www.richp.com/pics/aerial-05-18-02/stanford-stadium-5-18-02.jpg

12. Bryant-Denny Stadium - Tuscaloosa, AL - 83,818 seats

http://www.thpi.com/bama/bryant-denny2.jpg

13. Legion Field - Birmingham, AL - 83,091 seats

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NCAA/ConfUSA/AlabamaBirmingham/aerial.jpg

14. Florida Field - Gainesville, FL - 83,000 seats

http://www.bniengineers.com/images/gators.jpg

15. Memorial Stadium - Clemson, SC - 81,474 seats

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NCAA/ACC/Clemson/aerial.jpg

16. Notre Dame Stadium - South Bend, IN - 80,795 seats

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/nd/nonsport/facilities/stadium-450w.jpg

17. Kyle Field - College Station, TX - 80,650 seats

http://yosemite.tamu.edu/images/kyle-field.jpg

18. Royal-Memorial Stadium - Austin, TX - 80,082 seats

http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/images/2002_03/main_images/facility/stadium_400.jpg

19. Giants Stadium - East Rutherford, NJ - 80,062 seats

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NFL/NewYorkGiants/aerial.jpg

20. Doak Campbell Stadium - Tallahassee, FL - 80,000 seats

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/fsu/galleries/doak-campbell/aerial-lg.jpg

21. Arrowhead Stadium - Kansas City, MO - 79,451 seats

http://www.razfoto.com/images/546.jpg

22. Camp Randall Stadium - Madison, WI - 76,634 seats

http://www.collegecharlie.com/files/WisStadium.jpg

23. Invesco Field - Denver, CO - 76,125 seats

http://www.collectorsseries.com/images/24.jpg

24. Pro Player Stadium - Miami, FL - 75,540 seats

http://digilander.libero.it/centostadi/pro%20player%20stadium.jpg

25. Memorial Stadium - Berkeley, CA - 75,028 seats

http://www.tailgatershandbook.com/images/cal6.jpg

26. Ralph Wilson Stadium - Orchard Park, NY - 73,967 seats

http://www.skypic.com/sports/12-5759.jpg

27. Memorial Stadium - Lincoln, NE - 73,918 seats

http://www.razfoto.com/images/475.jpg

28. Bank of America Stadium - Charlotte, NC - 73,500 seats

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NFL/CarolinaPanthers/aerial.jpg

29. Sun Devil Stadium - Tempe, AZ - 73,379 seats

http://www.tempe.gov/graphics/stadium.gif

30. Cleveland Browns Stadium - Cleveland, OH - 73,200 seats

http://www.edlippjr.com/pictures/albums/31-40/39_helicopter_ride/41_browns_stadium.jpg

31. ALLTEL Stadium - Jacksonville, FL - 73,000 seats

http://www.lesitedeschampions.ca/stade_jaguars_ext.jpg

32. Oklahoma Memorial - Norman, OK - 72,765 seats

http://www.ou.edu/visitorcenter/wallpaper/wall_owen_field_800.jpg

33. Lambeau Field - Green Bay, WI - 72,515 seats

http://www.packersnews.com/photogallery/0814lambeautour/images/0080203_2.jpg

34. Husky Stadium - Seattle, WA - 72,500 seats

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march02/images/place_stadium.jpg

34. Orange Bowl - Miami, FL - 72,319 seats

http://www.bigeast.org/reference/photos/football/mmi/fullsize/stadium.jpg

35. Spartan Stadium - East Lansing, MI - 72,027 seats

http://www.aerialpics.com/G/spartan.jpg

36. Reynolds-Razorback Stadium - Fayetteville, AR - 72,000 seats

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NCAA/SEC/Arkansas/aerial.jpg

37. Qualcomm Stadium - San Diego, CA - 71,000 seats

http://images.usatoday.com/travel/_photos/2003/09/05-qualcomm-inside.jpg

38. Soldier Field - Chicago, IL - 70,904 seats

http://www.pbase.com/image/27592129.jpg

39. Kinnick Stadium - Iowa City, IA - 70,397 seats

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Frozen%20Kinnick%20Stadium%202-03.jpg

40. Citrus Bowl - Orlando, FL - 70,188 seats

http://www.weddingdecorator.net/citrusbowl.JPG

41. Rice Stadium - Houston, TX - 70,000 seats

http://dacnet.rice.edu/maps/space/images/aerial/aerial_whole.jpg

42. Reliant Stadium - Houston, TX - 69,500 seats

http://images.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/02/reliant/img/stadiumfr2.jpg

43. 3Com Park - San Francisco, CA - 69,400 seats

http://www.panix.com/~jac/baytour/118-1877_IMG.JPG

44. Memorial Stadium - Champaign, IL - 69,249 seats

http://www.uiaa.org/urbana/illinoisalumni/images/0206athletics.jpg

45. M&T Bank Stadium - Baltimore, MD - 69,084 seats

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NFL/BaltimoreRavens/aerial.jpg

46. The Coliseum - Nashville, TN - 68,799 seats

http://www.markelliottmusic.com/Stadium%20Air.jpg

47. Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia, PA - 68,532 seats

http://www.agooslovera.com/slides/sports/images/eag1.jpg

48. Gillette Stadium - Foxboro, MA - 68,000 seats

http://www.collectorsseries.com/images/gillette.jpg

49. Commonwealth Stadium - Lexington, KY - 67,530 seats

http://www.ukathletics.com/image_lib/commonwealth2.jpg

50. Seahawks Stadium - Seattle, WA - 67,000 seats

http://www.seaoi.org/assets/images/Seahawks_Stadium_lg.jpg

51. Ross-Ade Stadium - West Lafayette, IN - 66,295 seats

http://www.in.gov/film/images/locations/Ross_Ade_Stadium.jpg

TexasBoi

April 18th, 2004, 08:39 PM

Great Pics and Thread
Most of the big stadiums are College Stadiums where the best of the game of football is played and most of the smaller stadiums are from the NFL

Basiliensis

April 18th, 2004, 08:51 PM

I think this is a international forum, for a better understanding it s better to call Fottball (=soccer) as Football and American Football as American Football. Without this "international" calling system we talk not from the same if we say here "Football". It s the same sense of decency to speak here english or at least to try it in this international forum part and not to talk e.g. in German with you.
Maybe for some Americans it s difficult to understand and respect other systems than them own.

Sounder

April 18th, 2004, 10:06 PM

In the U.S.A. football is football & that boring sport in which they kick a ball around is soccer. The thread is about the U.S.A. if you didn't read the title.

JacobRit

April 18th, 2004, 10:47 PM

nick_taylor

April 18th, 2004, 11:15 PM

And the funny thing about American Football: its Rugby, but with:

a) Lots of breaks to regain energy
b) Lots of padding, helmets and the like to ensure no actual contact and to ensure mummy's boy doesn't get hurt

On another note, I don't need to repeat what the enlightened JacobRit said other than that nobody in the wide world who is sane watches NFL or any other anally retentive American sport - now that is funny :lol:

TexasBoi

April 18th, 2004, 11:49 PM

The great thing about that is we dont care what you think or say because we are not here to please you or cater to you.
Funny, i have talked to many rugby players that has played Football and they say Football is about as physical if not more than rugby. You see what you see on tv and you think hey this is like rugby yet you probably never played a minute of the game.

TexasBoi

April 18th, 2004, 11:52 PM

Ha ok, so A) Football should be the game where you use your feet!
B) what can be more boring than 20 seconds of play and 5 mins of adverts for 5 hours?
and C) Football is the most popular sport in the world! American football does not come anywhere close

so think before you get into your one dimensional US Centric mindset!

Pratt!

after all that you just said Football is still Football...Soccer is still Soccer...does it hurt you so much that we will not call it what you want us to call it lol..Football games never go 5 hours
Harly anybody in the US Disrespects your sports..why do you disrespect ours??

nick_taylor

April 19th, 2004, 12:13 AM

I've not played professional - I'm simply not that good. I play wing and have played for ooooohhhhh for around 7 years. Luckily the worst I've had happen to me, is studs in the eye, being winded on several occasions and having an unfortunate incident when my crown jewels came into contact with a right royal of a kick (all better now :lol:). I have however seen some awful acts - legs splitting right in two (ie a full clean snap with splintered bone ejecting out the leg - made half the team sick), awkward fulls with ankles twisting 90 degrees of more. My dad saw a guys eye pop out while he played, peoples faces being cut up like they had just been knifed. Its an awful game, but when played right it is a brilliant game.

The reason we disrespect your sport, is because you disrespect our sport by calling it soccer when its football. I dont call you a tossing loser do I - because you probably aint!!!!! So if you wanna be nice and not be the odd one out IN THE WHOLE WORLD then you really ought to understand where we are coming from.

TexasBoi

April 19th, 2004, 05:38 AM

I know different people from different parts of the world that calls your sport soccer not just Americans...so its not just us

Sounder

April 19th, 2004, 07:26 AM

Why do you guys have to ruin this great thread? Americans call football football and call soccer soccer. Deal with it. Now back to the topic....

rantanamo

April 19th, 2004, 07:49 AM

You can move Sanford up the list above LA Memorial Colisseum after the new expansion

TexasBoi

April 19th, 2004, 08:27 AM

sorry about that Sounder
I believe Oklahoma is renovating as well to get more seating

CharlieP

April 19th, 2004, 02:07 PM

[15. Memorial Stadium - Clemson, SC - 81,474 seats

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NCAA/ACC/Clemson/aerial.jpg

What freaks me out is how some of these stadia have such large capacities with whole ends missing - I'm trying to imagine how large the above would be if it the side stands were continued all the way round to form a bowl...

Kaneda

April 19th, 2004, 02:20 PM

It would be interresting with a thread about the biggest FOOTBALL (the real football) stadiums in the US, or is it mostly played in American Football stadiums?

CharlieP

April 19th, 2004, 02:26 PM

The reason we disrespect your sport, is because you disrespect our sport by calling it soccer when its football. I dont call you a tossing loser do I - because you probably aint!!!!! So if you wanna be nice and not be the odd one out IN THE WHOLE WORLD then you really ought to understand where we are coming from.

Nick - association football ("soccer") is only "football" colloquially in the parts of the world where it's the dominant code of football. In most states in Australia "football" is Aussie Rules, in NSW and QLD it's rugby league, in New Zealand it's rugby union, in Ireland it's Gaelic football, in the USA it's gridiron, in Canada it's Canadian football etc. etc. Even in the UK you'll find entities like "Leicester Football Club" (rugby union) and "Hull F.C." (rugby league) which were founded before the rules of soccer were established...

Where I think you're coming from is the misguided belief that the code of football you follow is the only (or original) form of football, and North Americans and Australasians have "stolen" the game, unfortunately it just makes you look ignorant and intolerant... :)

CharlieP

April 19th, 2004, 02:32 PM

It would be interresting with a thread about the biggest FOOTBALL (the real football) stadiums in the US, or is it mostly played in American Football stadiums?

AAAARGH!!! There is no "real" football - football is a generic term for ball games played on foot. This argument is akin to beef and pork fans arguing ownership of the word "meat"... :bash:

Sounder

April 19th, 2004, 06:22 PM

It would be interresting with a thread about the biggest FOOTBALL (the real football) stadiums in the US, or is it mostly played in American Football stadiums?

This is a thread about the biggest football stadiums (we call that boring sport in which they kick a ball around soccer). If you wanted to see soccer stadiums in the U.S.A., you would see a bunch of pictures of puny high school football stadiums because soccer is not that popular in the U.S. Columbus, OH & Carson, CA have a nice soccer stadiums but that is about it.

Enough with the off topic semantics & soccer talk....

BTW, a correction to the above:

33. Lambeau Field - Green Bay, WI - 72,515 seats in a recent remodel (edited in above)

Here are the football stadiums that missed the cut:

Raymond James Stadium - Tampa, FL - 65,657
Texas Stadium - Irving, TX - 65,639
Paul Brown Stadium - Cincinnati, OH - 65,352
Lane Stadium - Blacksburg, VA - 65,115
LaVell Edwards Stadium - Provo, UT - 65,000
Heinz Field - Pittsburgh, PA - 64,450
Mountaineer Field - Morgantown, WV - 63,500
Network Associates Coliseum - Oakland, CA - 63,132
Liberty Bowl - Memphis, TN - 62,380
Faurot Field - Columbia, MO - 62,000
Vaught-Hemmingway Stadium - Oxford, MS - 60,580

Basiliensis

April 19th, 2004, 07:09 PM

Nick - association football ("soccer") is only "football" colloquially in the parts of the world where it's the dominant code of football. In most states in Australia "football" is Aussie Rules, in NSW and QLD it's rugby league, in New Zealand it's rugby union, in Ireland it's Gaelic football, in the USA it's gridiron, in Canada it's Canadian football etc. etc. Even in the UK you'll find entities like "Leicester Football Club" (rugby union) and "Hull F.C." (rugby league) which were founded before the rules of soccer were established...

Yes, and you are damned right, it counts only what 99.99% of the
mankind (in your opinion USA; Canada, Australian, New Zealand) understand of this word. The rest of the world doesn`t exist. I always have the mention that English or American is a international language which is spoken over the world, not only in this ones, which it is the mother tongue.
So I ask me what the Asians, Africans, South Americans, Arabs, Japanese and all the rest of the world understand under the word "Football" and not only whats written in a american encyclopedia.

The Game Is Up

April 20th, 2004, 12:08 AM

Here's a link where you can learn more about MLS stadia:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106000

Anyway, I think the reason why the ends on some of those college football stadia are open is because they want to keep them open so that they'll work on expanding on the sides. Once they achieve maximum capacity on the sides then they'll go filling up the ends, achieving maximum capacity for the whole stadia. That's how Penn State's stadium was expanded. Norte Dame's stadium already started off as a bowl, so they'd just add rings of sections on top of the others.

P.S.: Remember the old maxum that just because something's popular doesn't necessarily make it right. ;)

And please stop whining.

hngcm

April 20th, 2004, 05:12 AM

I don't like big bowl stadiums

lack architecture

oh and

Soccer > You;)

CharlieP

April 20th, 2004, 09:37 AM

Yes, and you are damned right, it counts only what 99.99% of the
mankind (in your opinion USA; Canada, Australian, New Zealand) understand of this word. The rest of the world doesn`t exist. I always have the mention that English or American is a international language which is spoken over the world, not only in this ones, which it is the mother tongue.
So I ask me what the Asians, Africans, South Americans, Arabs, Japanese and all the rest of the world understand under the word "Football" and not only whats written in a american encyclopedia.

In case you hadn't spotted, I'm English, I live in England (which does exist in my opinion), and I don't own an American encyclopedia. I just happen to understand that football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football) describes a number of different games - it's perfectly valid for our American friends to talk about the stadia pictured in this thread as "football stadiums", just as the Sydney Football Stadium is a perfectly valid name for the ground where you'll see rugby league and rugby union being played at the moment...

I agree with your sentiment that confusion should be avoided wherever possible, but surely the best solution is to qualify which code of football is being referred to wherever it's not clear (in this thread it's pretty obvious), rather than starting a flame war pointlessly arguing that one game or the other is the real "football"...

JacobRit

April 21st, 2004, 12:34 AM

How many of these stadia have actual individual seats? and how many are bleacher, bench style seats! i much prefer individual folding down seats myself, with the benches a capacity can change depending how many lard arses turn up to the game!

TexasBoi

April 21st, 2004, 04:28 AM

I think that most college stadiums are bleachers and most professional stadiums are fold down seats. Thats why college stadiums can seat more people than pro stadiums.

rantanamo

April 21st, 2004, 06:07 AM

College stadia give tickets the same way pro stadia do. The benches have seat numbers. The seating capcity doesn't change depending on lard asses. Colleges use them mostly because they don't take up as much space with arm rests and for cost reasons. Yes that is a two inches you are saving, but that adds up to plenty of room for a person ever 6-10 seats. This is necessary because large universities have millions of alumni and already have trouble with over demand. That's why you see Neyland at 106,000 or Daryl K. Royal with plans to expand to 114,000. There are seats in these stadia as well though. Some of the upper decks are entirely seated as well as areas infront of luxury suites(known as boxes). That's another area where more people are able to fit into college stadia. Luxury boxes take up a lot of space, and when you have 361 like Texas Stadium does, you could probably equate that space to 10-15,000 more seats.

CharlieP

May 3rd, 2004, 08:34 PM

Holy crap - how big would these be if the side stand design was continued around all four sides?

15. Memorial Stadium - Clemson, SC - 81,474 seats

http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NCAA/ACC/Clemson/aerial.jpg

17. Kyle Field - College Station, TX - 80,650 seats

http://yosemite.tamu.edu/images/kyle-field.jpg

18. Royal-Memorial Stadium - Austin, TX - 80,082 seats

http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/images/2002_03/main_images/facility/stadium_400.jpg

:eek2:

waj0527

May 4th, 2004, 12:11 AM

Clemson is expanding. Im not sure by how much, but they're adding on to one of the endzones.

Mr. T

May 4th, 2004, 03:08 AM

I dont know why. They have a horrible football program, their coach is only known as "Bobby Bowdens son". GO MARYLAND TERPS FOOTBAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :colgate:

waj0527

May 4th, 2004, 05:34 AM

^^Thats the spirit!!!! Go Terps!!!!!!! :drunk:

Maryland Basketball can get some love too.

http://www.umd.edu/gr/hm/accchamps.gif

yyyves

May 4th, 2004, 04:30 PM

I wasnt aware the you guys have that many huge stadiums... :eek2:
fantastic stuff...I dont know what the discussion is all about, i dont give a f..k what is the real football or who calls what how and why... :wallbash:

BrizzyChris

May 5th, 2004, 07:42 AM

You guys have way too many sports teams to follow!

yyyves

May 5th, 2004, 05:49 PM

there are never enough games to watch and teams to follow :cucumber:

Rgds yyyves

dynamoultraclean

May 6th, 2004, 09:25 AM

LOL, bloody sooks. I came into this forum expecting to see Gridion stadiums as I understand that when an American says "football stadiums" they usually mean stadiums in which Gridion is played.

As for the stadiums themselves, I am not a huge fan of their appearance but am impressed with the capacities of them. They're huge!

pwright1

May 7th, 2004, 09:50 AM

What happened to the Cotton Bowl in Dallas? I know it should be on the list somewhere?

DeMaFrost

June 26th, 2004, 07:01 PM

I hate the Tards, but anything will be better then Busch Stadium where my Cubbies always seem to have a hard time winning. Looks like a beautiful stadium though and the good fans of St. Louis (I guess) deserve a new park.

Kampflamm

June 26th, 2004, 07:21 PM

How many cookie cutter stadiums are still left standing?

rantanamo

June 26th, 2004, 07:40 PM

DeMaFrost

June 26th, 2004, 07:47 PM

Busch might be the last.

What were they? Busch, Riverfront, Three Rivers, Fulton County, the Vet (to an extent), oh, forgot about San Diego, though its all football now, ummmm, Anahiem, though it was nice renovated and doesn't resemble the cookie cutters now. Can't think of anymore.

Anyways, like the new stadium. Yes, the MLB parks use a lot of bricks, but each one has its own feel and style.

I think the only 5 true cookiecutters were the first 5 you mentioned. They were so similar at first that players would (jokingly?) remark they didn't know whether they were in St. Louis, Philly, or Atlanta until they looked at the other teams players. What were they thinking???

I think the other ones you mentioned were similar to cookie cutters. Anaheim had the rounded bowl shape, but it wasn't truely circular, same with Jack Murphey/Qualquomm in San Diego. They were not molded in the same style that was eerily similar at the other 5 parks

Nameless

July 9th, 2004, 12:36 AM

The new stadium looks awesome. For a cookie cutter staidum Busch really doesn't look that bad. They have done a nice job with what they have.

FerrariEnzo

July 15th, 2004, 04:24 AM

Its ugly and unimaginative.

Randy Sandford

August 3rd, 2004, 06:28 AM

I see that the photo for Jordan-Hare Stadium at Auburn University (#10, 86,063 seats)
is no longer showing up, so here are several photos (the last 7 were shot by me):

http://www.pbase.com/image/32127733.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/32127734.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/32127735.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/32127736.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/32127737.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/32127738.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/32127739.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/32127740.jpg

WIDE Panorama -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> ->

http://www.pbase.com/image/32127741/original.jpg

Toadboy

August 3rd, 2004, 09:50 AM

The scale is amazing, the design dull. I'm suprised a nation as modern and sophisticated as the US allows benches to be used in place of individual seating.

How practical is to have such huge stands at the sides? What's the viewing like from the upper decks and how do so many people disperse and circulate outside once the game is over?

rantanamo

August 3rd, 2004, 10:44 AM

I guess its hard for those that didn't grow up with college football to understand college football. College football is about tradition. The same songs have been sung for decades or over a century in some cases. School alumni come back and support their school more vehemently than any pro teams in the US. This allows for huge fan bases in comparison to pro teams. One may move to different cities and find new pro teams, but you take your college Alma-Mater wherever you go. So the stadiums must balance luxury, capacity and tradition which includes a lot of pageantry. Its not about trying to be modern and sophisticated when you're talking about college football. More benches are tradition, plus they allow more capacity. The old stadia are way too beloved, so they expand and renovate. The stadia have luxury suites, some individual seats and modern communication, but something like Wembley or Soldier Field would be considered blasphemous in the NCAA. That's just how college football is. Even the uniforms of the major universities rarely change, if much at all. Teams like Texas, USC, Penn State or Ohio State have been wearing the same uniforms for many, many years, and they are basic, even though these are universities with budgets in the billions and athletic departments with budgest well into the tens of millions.

Just look at the training and accomodations at Texas. Does this say, not modern to you?

Practice facility:
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/images/2003_04/facility/images/aerial.f02.jpg
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/images/2003_04/facility/images/indoor_practice_facility_c7.jpg
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/images/2003_04/facility/images/computer_center.jpg
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/images/2003_04/facility/images/weight_room_001.jpg
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/images/2003_04/facility/images/locker_room.jpg

The orientation of the stands have everything to do with the nature of the game. When viewing our football, the sides are by far the best view. Our football is very complicated and you can simply see more of the strategy and individual battles from the sides, as opposed to the endzones. The endzone view is great when the team is on your end only, otherwise you are too flat to understand why the Belly 34 or Y slant has been killing your defense all day. The viewing angles are high, but you can really see the field. Our football is funny in that being close is a really horrible view unlike basketball or hockey. Near the top of the first tier on the 50 yardline(mid field) are the best seats and most expensive usually. So, owners try to get as many people with decent views, so they can charge more. People circulate just fine. I've never had a problem getting out of the upper decks at DKR after games.

Someone mentioned how big the stadiums are without being closed in. Neyland and the Horseshoe(Ohio Stadium) show just how big these things can be when enclosed. Here's an expansion plan for DKR that would increase capacity from nearly 81,000 to 0ver 114,000 making it the largest football venue in the US. Being the largest university in the US, the University of Texas has reached the alumni + student mass that it needs this by the end of the decade. At over 80,000 the place is sold out every game far in advance and is literally spilling over.

Now:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/50110720wKpNQu_fs.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/Stadium_1024x768.jpg

Expansion

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/model.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/DKRexpansion1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/DKRexpansion2.jpg

Toadboy

August 3rd, 2004, 11:18 AM

KCDevin

August 3rd, 2004, 02:46 PM

I wonder how loud arrowhead would be if it had over 100,000 seats... whoo...
It only has 80,000 seats yet it's still one of the loudest in the nation.
Go Chiefs!!!!
http://photos.***************/kcgridlock/kansascitymissouriattractions/arrowhead.jpg
http://graphics.fansonly.com/confs/big12/graphics/arrowhead-430.jpg
http://www.kcmetrosports.com/img/articles/Dante-Hall-and-Stills.gifhttp://kcmetrosports.com/img/articles/Priest-Holmes-vs-Bills.gif
And don't forget the other football played at arrowhead...
http://www.getakickoutofreading.org/images/KC_rgb.gif
http://www.mlsnet.com/content/02/images/kc0000klein.jpg

SDK4

August 3rd, 2004, 02:58 PM

Doak Campbell Stadium in Tallahassee, Florida is not only the best college football stadium, it is the best ever built anywhere. This place can get really loud during FSU-Florida rivalry games.

Randy Sandford

August 3rd, 2004, 04:13 PM

Sounder should have noted which of those 51 stadia were on college campuses and not used by professional teams (28 of them). Apparently, some people didn't read the explanation for why college stadia use bleachers instead of individual seats. While cities can use bonds and tax revenue to build brand new stadia for professional teams, colleges primarily rely on alumni donations to build or expand their own stadia. Most college stadia were first built in the early 1900's with only a fraction of their present-day capacities and were slowly enlarged over the years by different expansions to meet increasing demand for tickets. And still most have waiting lists for season tickets and could benefit from even greater capacity to accomodate all of their fans. So bleacher-style seating is obviously more beneficial for college stadia for a number of reasons.

I'll give you an example of the growth history of one college stadium--Jordan-Hare Stadium at Auburn University:

1939 - opened with a capcity of 7,500 (lower east side of present-day stadium)
1949 - capacity increased to 21,500 with addition of seating on the west side
1955 - additional seating added to east side, bringing capacity to 34,500
1960 - seating added to one end zone to create a horseshoe with a capacity of 44,500
1970 - seating added to other end zone to create a bowl with a capacity of 61,261
1980 - west upper deck added, bringing capacity to 72,169
1987 - east upper deck (with 2 levels of luxury skyboxes) added, bringing capacity to 85,214
1999 - 398 seats added to south end zone, bringing capacity to 86,063

Another small expansion project is presently underway which will raise capacity even further, and their are plans for further expansion in the near future.

By the way, why don't the Europeans who are comparing our college stadia (built mostly by private donations) with their professional stadia (built with public funds) show us photos of their college stadia? What? Your colleges don't have stadia this large and impressive? ;)

Randy Sandford

August 3rd, 2004, 04:19 PM

duplicate post

Rudi Völler

August 3rd, 2004, 04:36 PM

nah...the majority of the european stadia belong to the clubs and hence were built by private funds

Randy Sandford

August 3rd, 2004, 06:04 PM

nah...the majority of the european stadia belong to the clubs and hence were built by private funds

Regardless, professional sports here in America usually charge much more for tickets than colleges do which helps them generate more revenue. Professional stadia also benefit from corporate sponsorship and advertising. Anyway, it's hard to compare stadia in the USA and Europe since there aren't a lot of massive college stadia in Europe as there are over here.

Rudi Völler

August 3rd, 2004, 06:19 PM

true. in fact we dont got any college stadium that is worth mentioning (if anyone knows one you can correct me). college sport is either non existant here or negligible, so a comparison is bs

kingdomca

August 4th, 2004, 02:36 AM

Randy please dont start embarrassing americans again by making silly comparisons based on your own country. Sport is simply not based around schools in europe, but clubs and as such comparisons are a joke, in fact in my country comparisons would be impossible as there isnt a single university field of any kind. students do sports at local clubs.

Britain (and perhaps others) are slightly different in that schools play organised sports, in fact thats where the origins of both US and european football are, but not as a spectator sport. Fans would always go to the pro game.
Dont forget in europe pro sport is not a small closed shop. The number of pro teams is infinite. any team can decide to go pro and get promoted to ever better leagues etc. No club would let themselves be held back by having only students if they could sustain being pro.

How about we found a country where company sport is big, played by the employees. Could we then compare them to coca cola or microsoft´s venues?

However unless I am mistaken there are just 30 pro american football teams which is the same as a shocking one per 10 million!!
That would be the equivalent of just 6 pro teams in england.
If you want to compare something just take all the US teams and compare them to all the european teams.

rantanamo

August 4th, 2004, 05:01 AM

rantanamo

August 4th, 2004, 05:22 AM

Fill the ends in!

I know what you mean about tradition and the 1st time I visited the states (1990) I was shocked at how big college football was.

The point about individual seats and benches is a safety issue, you simply couldn't build a new stadium in the UK with benches or bleachers in the seated area, the law demands an individual seat for every fan. In terms of tradition football fans like standing terraces but they are a big no no at the larger venues. Do any stadiums there still have standing sections? I believe Cleveland did. That goes for most of Europe I believe. You also wouldn't get away with building a stadium without any cover for spectators which also drives the cost up.

One other thing you notice about north American stadia is their locality which more often than not seems to allow for car parking all around the area. Most European stadia are inner city or suburban.

I went to an NFL game in Tampa and the buzz around the car park was something you simply don't get here, although people here tend to disperse to loacl pubs, bars and cafes pre match.

If Texas do fill the ends of that stadium it will be intense with 114,000 covering 4 sides - a real home advantage!

I agree. Texas fans want the endzones filled badly. The delay has been the need to upgrade the other sports first. We hired a first rate basketball coach and actually reached the Final Four a couple of years ago, so the basketball arena and training facilities took first priority. Then the baseball team won the college world series and was second this year. Now alumni want the baseball stadium renovated and upgraded. So I guess the football upgrade will come towards the end of the decade unless we get a nice gift from alumni(UT is second to only Harvard in alumni gifts)

I'm curious as to the safety concern about benches as opposed to seats. Is it a capacity concern? The benches are steel or plastic and often have dividers and even seats that fold.

I can't think of any standing sections. The new Cleveland stadium has a benched section to replace the old Dog Pound. As for covers for the stands, it simply a taboo. Though we have a ton of domes, covered and retractable roof stadia, they still have a bit of a stigma. You often hear, "_______ was meant to be played and watched under the sun." That goes for rain sleet or snow. I couldn't imagine Michigan or the Green Bay Packers with covered stands or in a dome. Just ask any American fan about this. I don't know why, but its just that way for whatever reason. Yes, we are weird.

As for our localities, it just depends on the sport and where. Most NFL stadia are build in a sea of parking lots, though some are built in urban areas. We are a car dominated society and the stadia are built for maximum revenue. Most MLB baseball stadia and basketball arenas are built more urban though. Most large college stadia though, are built on campus, and many are as old as the campus. Texas' DKR memorial has one student parking lot near it, that's scheduled to be covered with new student housing soon. Otherwise you bus in, walk in, have someone drop you off, or park in the parking garages on the perifery of the campus. Makes for great pre and post game atmospheres.

From what I understand on these boards, in spirit, our college sports are more similar to your pro sports. Our professional sports seems to be more corporate in nature.

JagGator007

August 4th, 2004, 05:25 AM

You can move Florida Field up, it's way more than 83k now. I'm not sure about the actual number, but at the UF-FSU game last year there was 92k and change.

Florida Field, a.k.a. "The Swamp" is considered the loudest stadium in the country by many. Partly because of the capacity (90k we'll call it), partly because of the fans (notoriously rabid, including myself) and a large part due to the design. "The Concrete Pit" as one of my FSU friends calls it. There are angles and walls that only amp the sound up more.

Not the best pic, but it'll do:

http://www.ads234.com/adView.aspx?requesturl=http%3A%2F%2Fusera.imagecave.com%2FJagGator007%2F6.jpg&mac=149157fd&Segment=1

Here's one of Michigan Stadium (don't fall :) )

http://www.ads234.com/adView.aspx?requesturl=http%3A%2F%2Fusera.imagecave.com%2FJagGator007%2Ftwisp_2003_0915_02.jpg&mac=149157fd&Segment=1

An abnormal view of The Rose Bowl after they "won" the National Championship

http://www.ads234.com/adView.aspx?requesturl=http%3A%2F%2Fusera.imagecave.com%2FJagGator007%2Ftrojanglory.jpg&mac=149157fd&Segment=1

Another view of Michigan Stadium:

http://www.ads234.com/adView.aspx?requesturl=http%3A%2F%2Fusera.imagecave.com%2FJagGator007%2Fp1980.jpg&mac=149157fd&Segment=1

That's all for now

kingdomca

August 4th, 2004, 05:50 AM

^ I don't get your point. Randy was pointing this out, and I pointed out why certain things are the way they are, but some simply don't get the point.

First of all, there are not just 30 professional football teams. In NA, there is the CFL, Arena FL, Arena 2 FL, and hundreds of semi-pro teams, that play in smaller stadia throughout the country. I would say there are hundreds of teams actually. Same for baseball(minor leagues) and NBA(CBA/NBDL). Pro sports is not a closed shop. What most see oversees are simply the top level.

I believe the root of American football is at the high school level. This is where fans are born, players gain reputations, and the passion is big. College football is simply the same thing on a higher level, with bigger stadia, bigger/better athletes, more fans, etc. In our two most popular sports right now (baseball and football) there takes a great deal of skill(baseball) or, skill and mature body(football).

Baseball uses the system of drafting players from college or high school. Some players choose the college atmosphere or to get a free education. Some choose to go to the minors and make smaller money now. There are hundreds of minor league teams. These are considered professional as it is pay to play as well as many major leaguers being dropped their to rehab injuries or player are immediately called to the majors to fill spots.

Football simply uses a different system. On paper, to football is a very mentally tough game to play. There is a lot of technique to learn. A large skillset to master. On the field, the game is very, very fast off of the lines. On the lines it is very skilled and physical. A high school kid, or even high school graduate simply does not have the speed, brains, contact balance, strength or musculature to be able to play at the pro level. So the college game is used as the training ground. So why not just have a minor league system like baseball does. My quick answer would be two things: a.)football is very hard to judge for the future, and b.) football rosters are huge, having often more than 100 players in leagues below the pro-level. As for the judging, you get many raw super athlete's out of high school. Some guys are simply great athletes and go on to play baseball or run track events. They may not have the mental make-up to play football, or be able to develop the necessary skill-set. U.S. track and field is filled with these guys. Yes, skill athletes on a football field are that fast. As for the numbers, How do you pay them all? You can't. College football is a great training ground, and it features the best players for those ages 18-22/23, so you are still getting great entertainment.

So, its just different. Not better or worse. Just how it is. College football is huge!!! Can't wait for the season to start. Hook em' Horns!!.

My point was that wanting to compare american university stadiums to european university stadiums would be pretty pointless given that there are no european ones.

I was aware that you probably had all sorts of smaller closed shop pro-leagues, but I would consider them beneath college and as such we would be pretty far down the comparison list. Judging from my own country Europe would have well beyond 2,000 pro clubs, though that sounds a bit high.

Anyway, one thing I really admire about college football is that they play so incredibly few games! I think thats great but its strange as it seems to be in stark contrast to both european and other american sport and is far better than having physically and especially mentally tired players.

Yes I understand you have lots of roofs and for all the ones that dont have its purely because you want it that way. Sure ok I shall not for as much as a second think that its because they cant afford it.
Nobody wants indoor football, I dont think, but I consider roofs over the stands important not least because of the atmosphere.

I am not sure why colleges compares to pro european clubs, colleges make little money play few games with amateurs, whereas euro clubs play too many games and is plenty coporate for the liking of most fans

Lucky 24

August 4th, 2004, 06:35 AM

Some pics I took at Ralph Wilson stadium in Buffalo, NY:

http://www.inclearimage.com/images/Buffalo/IMG_0013.JPG.JPG

http://www.inclearimage.com/images/Buffalo/IMG_0011.JPG.JPG

Pano Scroll ->
http://www.inclearimage.com/images/Buffalo/Buffalo.jpg

Randy Sandford

August 4th, 2004, 07:13 AM

Randy please dont start embarrassing americans again by making silly comparisons based on your own country. Sport is simply not based around schools in europe, but clubs and as such comparisons are a joke, in fact in my country comparisons would be impossible as there isnt a single university field of any kind. students do sports at local clubs.

Did you even read through all the preceding replies to this thread? Some of the Europeans were the ones who began comparing the stadia featured at the beginning of this thread with stadia in Europe and trying to point out why European stadia were better. I was trying to remind them that the majority of the largest American football stadia were located on college campuses and, therefore, lacked some of the amenities (e.g., individual seats) that are usually found in stadia used by professional football teams that are often built with public funding and benefit from corporate sponsorship.

rantanamo

August 4th, 2004, 07:49 AM

My point was that wanting to compare american university stadiums to european university stadiums would be pretty pointless given that there are no european ones.

Maybe less of a comparison, and more of a contrast.

I was aware that you probably had all sorts of smaller closed shop pro-leagues, but I would consider them beneath college and as such we would be pretty far down the comparison list. Judging from my own country Europe would have well beyond 2,000 pro clubs, though that sounds a bit high.

I wouldn't put them beneath college from the level-of-play standpoint as they are made up of former college players who are now professional. There are probably 1 or 2 college teams that could compete with CFL teams or arena league teams. The college players are not as physically mature and have to balance their sport with their academic responsibilities. Especially in baseball. I'd put AA and AA above college baseball. Some lower league teams actually have exhibitions with college teams in basketball or baseball. Only maybe the top 10 teams in college compete well with them. Our track and field system works similarly to football. The NCAA's are very competitive for track and field and occasionally set world records.

Anyway, one thing I really admire about college football is that they play so incredibly few games! I think thats great but its strange as it seems to be in stark contrast to both european and other american sport and is far better than having physically and especially mentally tired players.

This is all about the game. Having played football, I can tell you that 2 games per week would be the maximum the human body could stand assuming there are no injuries. Then one must consider the mental and 'book' aspect of football. Teams simply can't practice 1 or 2 days and be prepared to play against a team who has 1,000 pages in their playbook, audibles for each formation, tendencies out of each formation, individual player tendencies, substitution patterns, special team tendencies, and possible trick plays. Not to mention implementing one's own strategies. By the time all of this is implemented, the week is over. So basically you end up with 1 game per week for 3 months (Sept - Nov) , Then bowl games. The NFL plays 16 games(once per week Sept - Dec). Its just a really tough game to play more than once per week.

Yes I understand you have lots of roofs and for all the ones that dont have its purely because you want it that way. Sure ok I shall not for as much as a second think that its because they cant afford it.
Nobody wants indoor football, I dont think, but I consider roofs over the stands important not least because of the atmosphere.

Just a difference in fan philosophies, and maybe a weather difference. We have lots of good weather and sunshine during our football season.

I am not sure why colleges compares to pro european clubs, colleges make little money play few games with amateurs, whereas euro clubs play too many games and is plenty coporate for the liking of most fans

If you're referring to my comparison, I'm referring to the atmosphere. Pro sports here are much more corporate, while at college games you'll see all kinds of color, song singing, etc. Much louder and more spirited compared to our sterile professional sports.

kingdomca

August 4th, 2004, 11:49 AM

Rantanamo, I think its pretty obvious that one game per week is max given the nature of the game, same here with rugby, what surprises me is the extremly short season, september to november,basically, but its definately not a bad thing

Toadboy

August 4th, 2004, 11:56 AM

el pato

August 6th, 2004, 12:52 AM

Busch was the nicest of the football/baseball stadiums ever built. It's too bad it's gonna be torn down though the new park looks spactacular. Don't like the green seats however. Red seats or anything but green would be nice.

Iain1974

August 6th, 2004, 06:20 PM

The safety issues in Europe around individual seating is so everyone has a defined space (in theory you can have that with benches) and people can't cram into one small area which is still possible with benches. In the absence of standing terraces, benches allow for a better atmosphere in the stadiums, people seem more able or ready to let themselves go for some reason.

The big difference between European and American stadiums is that in America there has never been a Hillsborough (or Bradford or Heysel).

I don't wish to be argumentitive with our American friends but most of the college stadiums would not be allowed to operate at all in the UK due to our very stringent safety requirements. If you remember the Taylor Report, many of our old grounds had their caacities slashed in the name of ground safety which is why, with SKY's money, there has been so much re-building/construction over the last decade. It's hard to imagine now, but Maine Road used to hold 85,000 yet in the wake of the Taylor Report the capacity was cut to 28K. Fratton held 70K but was cut to 20K. Not all grounds lost as much but most lost ~20%

http://www.stadiumguide.com/maineroad1.jpg

That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with college stadiums as most football fans feel that the Tylor Report went too far. Most english/scottish fans would prefer to see some cheap seats with benches or even terracing back (and ideally at less than £20 a ticket).

Another big difference in the attitude towards stadium (and specifically their size) in the UK is the number of games the teams play. In the Premier Leage there are 19 home games plus a decent team can expect perhaps 3 or 4 in the 2 cups and if they're very good then perhaps another 6 in the Champions League. If all these games can be sold out (and for almost every team they will be sold out) they can generate a lot more revenue at ~40K seats than an NFL team selling 100K 9 or 10 times a season.

Essentially the English teams prefer to maximise revenue and only increase capacity as a last resort. Any football fans on here will be happy to tell you Americans what has hapenned to ticket prices over the last few years. Especially at the London teams. Chelsea for example have their cheapest tickets at £43 for this coming season yet I remember going there about 15 years ago and it was £2! Admittedly that was a Simod Cup game and we stood but even so, thats a hell of an increase in price.

I know that was a little off topic but I thought some background might explain why stadiums are built differently in different countries.

BTW, I lived in England for 23yrs, Scotland for 3yrs and USA (Texas) for 4 yrs) and have been to football games in 3 continents so I do have a little firsthand experience.

rantanamo

August 6th, 2004, 08:00 PM

NFL stadia (US pro sports in general) tend to concentrate on increasing luxury suites with luxury boxes attached. This creates a totally different look I think, and increases the chance you'll see more than 2 tiers of seating. These alone create more revenue than the rest of the seats in the stadia, so you don't generally see pro stadia have the huge capacities that college stadia do. I'm not saying they don't exist in Europe. I'm saying there are stadia with 200+ of these things in the US, sitting beneath every tier of seating. Definitely creates a different look. Recent expansions at college stadia are starting to see this trend. DKR at U. of Texas for example, expanded luxury suites before expanding their capacity.

The Game Is Up

August 6th, 2004, 08:59 PM

The park WILL have red seats. That's an older design they used to promote the idea of replacing Busch Stadium. The team held an online poll and the fans overwhelmingly chose red as the color of the seats. So red they'll be.

BTW, the name of the stadium that'll replace Busch Stadium will be.........(drum roll)..................Busch Stadium. Yep. Anheuser-Busch bought the naming rights to the new digs, for a period of 20 years.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+%2F+County/EB7C5D9FA34F5E6686256EE7001C2D80?OpenDocument&Headline=New+stadium+taps+into+tradition+

The Village

August 7th, 2004, 04:50 AM

As someone else said, "Holy Crap!" this thread has some awesome fields in terms of shear number of seats.

Those shots of the propsed UT Austin expansion are amazing. And what if Kyle field were to close in the other endzone? The shot with the F16's is amazing!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/Stadium_1024x768.jpg

Expansion

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/model.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/DKRexpansion1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/UniversityofTexas/DKRexpansion2.jpg

hngcm

August 10th, 2004, 08:39 AM

Anheuser-Busch pays my check!:D

DrJoe

August 10th, 2004, 05:31 PM

it looks like every other new stadium built lately...the current Busch is unique and i think one of the best looking in the majors.

hngcm

August 13th, 2004, 04:14 AM

Busch stadium unique?!

DrJoe

August 13th, 2004, 06:01 AM

yes it is...tell me another stadium in the MLB that looks remotely like Busch, its the only cookie cutter left and it has been greatly modified from that era also...it is unqiue

asohn

August 16th, 2004, 06:47 AM

Architorture

September 23rd, 2004, 06:23 AM

penn state....best stadium ever

michigan...too far away when you are in the top row... and they don't sell out every game... penn state has had the highest attendence per season for a few years now

Balleke

September 23rd, 2004, 10:54 PM

although i don't like most of these stadiums, not a very beautifull architecture, but DAMN some of them are just really big... like whole city's can come together in such a stadium

ArchMadness

September 29th, 2004, 05:03 AM

I wouldn't consider Shea stadium a cookie-cutter. Its way to open in center field. A true cookie cutter is fully enclosed. In case nobody knows Busch stadium was the original cookie cutter and by far the best looking one. It'll be sad to see it go. Enough with the sentimental crap now here are some recent photos from 9/8/04...

http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/images/2004/09/14/BGQrxCnk.jpg
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/images/2004/09/14/GWMWM9YY.jpg
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/images/2004/09/14/JbTTGzXT.jpg
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/images/2004/09/14/cYH5KQV2.jpg
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/images/2004/09/14/jZBrYusx.jpg
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/images/2004/09/14/vNliV4Mc.jpg
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/images/2004/09/14/GUE6XvLZ.jpg

LibertyTwo

September 29th, 2004, 01:16 PM

Will be sad to see one of the last multi=purpose US stadiums go bye bye

JivecitySTL

September 29th, 2004, 03:42 PM

Yuck. The old Busch is so much more original.

Bigmac1212

November 3rd, 2004, 02:18 AM

Bump!

Bigmac1212

November 3rd, 2004, 11:17 PM

Uga, the team mascot at Georgia, has a bigger home. With an added upper deck, Sanford Stadium's capacity is now 92746! Here's the link:

http://georgiadogs.collegesports.com/facilities/sanford/index.html

staff

November 5th, 2004, 01:52 PM

One thing that is noticable is that NO stadiums in the US have a roof. At first i thought "then the crowd can't make any noise/chants", but then i realized - there are no supporters in the US! The crowd is there to eat junkfood and be a part of the "show"/circus. From a european view its mediocre. There is NO terrace culture in America...

th0m

November 5th, 2004, 04:14 PM

College football is awesome, I wish we would have something like that in Europe!
Its one of the reasons I will 100% go back for college to the US again, after having had an amazing year (even though the football wasn't all that great at my school, lol).

And stop the Europe-US wars already, and just accept the fact that cultures differ, and so do stadiums!

ArchMadness

November 8th, 2004, 07:55 PM

Some renderings of the proposed ballpark village.

http://www.hokplanninggroup.com/projects/portfolio/3b0f96ef-269b-4f48-8cb1-4c5d9049278b/projimages/full1_2.jpg
http://www.hokplanninggroup.com/projects/portfolio/3b0f96ef-269b-4f48-8cb1-4c5d9049278b/projimages/full1_6.jpg
http://www.hokplanninggroup.com/projects/portfolio/3b0f96ef-269b-4f48-8cb1-4c5d9049278b/projimages/mouseover1_1.jpg

What the architect says:
"This "Ballpark Village" would rise up from a re-established city street grid and would feature residential, office, and retail development that would bring vibrancy to the urban landscape 365 days a year. In the development section closest to the ballpark, a new building for the Cardinals Hall of Fame Museum would be framed by a series of themed restaurants and retail attractions that would provide an especially festive atmosphere on game days.

The new ballpark design takes into account the rich architectural history of St. Louis as well as some of the more successful historic ballparks of the past, including St. Louis’ own Sportsman’s Park. The major materials of the building exterior are those of downtown St. Louis: brick, granite and glass. Arched masonry windows and openings recall both classic ballparks like Ebbetts Field and the architecture of Cupples Station located across the street."

Bigmac1212

November 14th, 2004, 09:28 PM

Oklahoma's Memorial Stadium had an upgrade to raise it's capacity to 82,112. Here's a photo to what they added.

http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics4/400/TH/THQTNDOGTLCJJRL.20040920201318.jpg

EarlyBird

November 15th, 2004, 06:24 PM

The whole crowd numbers issue is irrelevant. Since the Hillsborough disaster in the UK our stadia have had to follow much stricter rules regarding attendance, crowd control, etc. If the new Wembley Stadium followed the rules of US stadia in terms of crowd segregation, space apportionment, etc. the stadium would have a capacity approaching 200,000.

Zaqattaq

November 18th, 2004, 05:01 AM

2nd Biggest Beaver Stadium just 5 minutes away!

May favorite american football stadiums have to be Qwest (Seattle)
The Swamp (U FLORIDA) and Autzen (U Oregon)

Hobodog

December 22nd, 2004, 12:28 AM

I think the only 5 true cookiecutters were the first 5 you mentioned. They were so similar at first that players would (jokingly?) remark they didn't know whether they were in St. Louis, Philly, or Atlanta until they looked at the other teams players. What were they thinking???

I think the other ones you mentioned were similar to cookie cutters. Anaheim had the rounded bowl shape, but it wasn't truely circular, same with Jack Murphey/Qualquomm in San Diego. They were not molded in the same style that was eerily similar at the other 5 parks

The Meadowlands, Giants Stadium can possibly be thrown in if you include the Vet...and maybe half of Shea stadium.

rantanamo

December 22nd, 2004, 01:52 AM

I love the open outfield plaza. Love the way it blends in with the city as well. This is what is great about the old ballparks. They just fit right into the cityscape.

Hobodog

December 22nd, 2004, 03:07 AM

Let me find a picture of Turner Field (don't flame me for mentioning the name so many seem to hate)...HKS copied right out of their playbook for this one...(note Turner is theirs too)

rantanamo

December 22nd, 2004, 07:07 AM

You're right. It is. The more squared off look of this looks more polished. Seems to fit much better with the surroundings as well.

edsg25

December 23rd, 2004, 05:35 AM

i agree with the observation that I hope the Cubs do better against the Cards at the new park.

like others, I think it looks like a great park. there is only one thing that I question about it: you guys have one of the best baseball towns in the nation. if anyone can fill a larger ball park than the norm of the retro era, you guys probably can.

that said, i see two things about the new park that might be a concern:

1. a small crowd will be gobbled up here

2. the park seems to have all the right feel, except one: intamacy. no, i'm not talking wrigley intamacy, but more like PacBell/SBC, the kind you see in so many of the other new parks

Has this issue been raised? Is it even an issue? Whatever, it's all pretty minor...you guys have a great thing going up.

Hobodog

December 23rd, 2004, 05:47 AM

What kind of intimacy do you not see? I see just as much as there is at PacBell, Safeco, etc...

th0m

December 27th, 2004, 05:01 AM

What is a cookie-cutter stadium? I don't know a whole lot about baseball, so forgive my igorance ;)

Hobodog

December 27th, 2004, 07:12 AM

They were a series of stadiums built in the 70s that looked nearly identical. Giant concrete monoliths...let me fish out some pictures.

Bigmac1212

February 4th, 2005, 08:48 PM

It's not much, but it's a start.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_lg_miami-lg.jpg
That's just plain weird. :weird:

rantanamo

February 4th, 2005, 09:00 PM

Looks like a retractable roof that would actually form a dome shape. Looks nice I think instead of just haveing a plain warehouse looking roof.

hngcm

February 5th, 2005, 07:37 AM

looks like marlins fins...

DrJoe

February 5th, 2005, 04:20 PM

well atleast its something different from the overdone throwback ballparks everyone is doing these days...the roof looks Skydomish

http://www.edu.uni-klu.ac.at/~gschiffe/Toronto/23T_CN%20Tower%20-%20Skydome.JPG

EAT my SHORTS!!!!!!

February 5th, 2005, 04:28 PM

yea you're right dr.joe

th0m

February 5th, 2005, 09:38 PM

It looks real nice. Better than them 'retro' parks.

birminghamculture

February 6th, 2005, 03:29 PM

Looks good from that Picture.

Cant wait to see some new renders :)

PHXbevo

February 7th, 2005, 11:44 PM

It's not much, but it's a start.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_lg_miami-lg.jpg
That's just plain weird. :weird:

hey a Tempe forumer!

:hi:

That stadium looks nuevea-retarded

Bigmac1212

February 9th, 2005, 10:36 PM

Here's a new picture:

http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0209/4180840_200X150.jpg

The Mad Hatter!!

February 10th, 2005, 12:24 AM

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2005-02/16220477.jpg[/QUOTE]

rantanamo

February 10th, 2005, 02:37 AM

Is that the Orange Bowl its sitting next to? OR Pro Player?

Bigmac1212

February 10th, 2005, 03:25 AM

Is that the Orange Bowl its sitting next to? OR Pro Player?

I think it's the Orange Bowl!

stlouiscityboy

April 8th, 2005, 03:07 AM

I will miss the Old Busch alot. It was the first of its kind and it was design to play off the arch, see all the small archs at the top of the stadium. The new one will be great and i love how they are using the famous St. Louis Red Brick on the new one. I do think building the new stadium so close to the Daniel Boone Expressway was the stupidest things ever done, but hey im not paying for it.

etched Chaos

April 8th, 2005, 04:08 AM

The Baseball park brick design, which is so familiar these days and used in probably every MLB ballpark i know of, is nice and i like it, but it is growing old. True it harks back to the olden days of baseball where the stadiums were part of emerging cities, but surely someone has to say 'No, i wanna innovate, I want to make my park a true beauty.'

Busch Park Mark 2 looks alright, from what i gather you losign a real unique park and getting well another brick based, fills the typical mould replacement.

rantanamo

April 8th, 2005, 06:42 AM

The only reason current Busch is unique is because they tore down its siblings over the last 5 years. St. Louis did a great job of personalizing it though, once football left for Arizona.

PHXbevo

April 8th, 2005, 09:51 AM

I'm just gonna chime in and say ...

Go Cubbies! :)

and thanks St Louis for sending Phoenix the shitty ass football Cardinals. You could have sent the baseball cardinals instead. :(

edsg25

April 8th, 2005, 03:21 PM

They were a series of stadiums built in the 70s that looked nearly identical. Giant concrete monoliths...let me fish out some pictures.

and all that's left today is Busch, Shea in NYC (minus outfield seating, unlike the others) and ironically temporarilly back in the mix is RFK in DC.

The rest (Cin, Pgh, Philly, Atl and even the Astrodome, which had a Shea-type layout) are history.

What type of sports idiot believed that a park could be built that would serve well the needs of football and baseball?

asohn

April 16th, 2005, 12:51 AM

Taken from the Bergen Record - http://www.northjersey.com

Giants and state applaud plan for bigger, better stadium

Friday, April 15, 2005

By JOHN BRENNAN
STAFF WRITER

http://www.northjersey.com/lib/get_image.php?story_id=6680145&image_size=f

EAST RUTHERFORD - The New York Giants took a crucial step toward replacing their longtime Meadowlands home Thursday, more than 30 years after the team made the bold decision to move to the swamps of southern Bergen County.

And though it may be impossible to top the magnitude of that earlier event in New Jersey history, Giants executives who joined acting Governor Codey on Thursday in signing a 40-year agreement nonetheless are promising a facility that will scarcely resemble Giants Stadium.

In fact, Giants Vice President John Mara effortlessly offered a lengthy response when asked "what's new?" about the new Giants stadium, which is scheduled to open in mid-2009.

"More dining options, better concessions, more comfortable restrooms, a team store, additional dining and retail components, and brand-new practice and training facilities," Mara said. "It's going to be a sad day for us when the current building goes down, but we've got to deal with reality here."

The reality is that the majority of National Football League franchises are playing in new or extensively renovated facilities. That allows the teams to rake in tens of millions of extra dollars from additional luxury suites, thousands of premium seats costing $150 to $350 apiece and vast concourses that entice consumers to empty their pocketbooks on souvenirs and food.

Now the Giants plan to join the trend by utilizing 75 acres for the new stadium, a Giants Hall of Fame, a large steakhouse-style restaurant, endless aisles of Giants knicknacks in a team store and possibly a private 50-room conference center. The current facility, slightly southwest of the likely new site, takes up a mere 27 acres.

The Giants are intrigued by the 25,000-square-foot Packers Hall of Fame in Green Bay, Wis. That homage to the past features the Packers' three Super Bowl trophies, more than 75 exhibits on star players and coaches and a children's area where young fans can kick field goals or throw touchdown passes.

The site is open to the public year-round on non-game days.

An atrium at the Packers' facility features Curly's Pub - named after legendary player and coach Curly Lambeau - and the Frozen in Time ice cream parlor.

Don't be surprised to see an "L.T. BLT," a "Bill Parcells Tuna Salad" or a "Frankfurter Gifford" on the menu at the Giants' restaurants and upgraded concession stands.

Privately funded

The focus of Thursday's news conference, however, was on stadium finances.

Codey three times called the agreement "the best deal for taxpayers" of any NFL stadium, a statement echoed by New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority Chairman Carl Goldberg.

"While other states are building these stadiums on the backs of taxpayers, New Jersey said no," Codey said, referring to the Giants' willingness to pay the entire cost of construction.

Noticeably absent Thursday was sports authority President George Zoffinger, who until 48 hours earlier was still trying to convince Codey not to make the deal with the Giants.

Zoffinger wanted to wait until the fate of the New York Jets' effort to move to Manhattan was decided, which may not be until later this summer.

He also believes taxpayers will be hurt by the loss of revenue from the current stadium, since the Giants will collect the money from the new building.

But Codey produced a report by UBS Financial Services that he said demonstrated the new deal was "as good or better" for taxpayers than the current scenario, in large part due to the additional tax revenues raised by the more lucrative facility. The report concluded that the $700 million or more to be spent by the Giants, compared with up to $30 million from the state for infrastructure improvements, "represents the largest disparity of private-to-public initial capital investment for any existing stadium within the entire NFL."

Goldberg said Zoffinger was invited Thursday, but chose not to attend.

Will the fans follow?

The patriarchs of the two families that jointly own the Giants, 88-year-old Wellington Mara and 78-year-old Robert Tisch, beamed as sons John Mara and Steve Tisch spoke to the media.

Wellington Mara recalled how nervous he was waiting for Giants Stadium to open in 1976.

"We were really concerned with how our fans would react," said Mara, whose team wandered from Yankee Stadium to the Yale Bowl to Shea Stadium before landing in the Meadowlands.

"But it turned out that 93 percent of them renewed their season-ticket applications, so it turned out to be a great thing."

Codey and Giants officials stressed that the Jets are welcome to change their minds and remain in the Meadowlands. But the Jets are focused on obtaining final approvals for their $2 billion West Side plan, and fending off numerous lawsuits designed to stop them.

Many NFL teams have had their fans shoulder some of the construction cost by issuing "personal seat licenses," or PSLs, which require fans to pay $500 to $3,000 for the right to continue to buy their season tickets.

"Our present financing plans do not call for PSLs," John Mara said. "We would like to be able to finance this thing without them, but now we're up to $750 million in costs, and every time I hear it, it makes me shudder."

Concern over Xanadu

The memorandum of understanding signed Thursday by the Giants and the state is expected to be approved by the sports authority board Tuesday, but the Giants still will have additional details to work out.

Chief among them is figuring out how to coexist with the $1.3 billion Xanadu entertainment and retail project that has been under construction for several weeks at the Continental Arena site.

John Mara described himself as "cautiously optimistic" entering those negotiations.

However, he acknowledged that he has serious concerns about potential gridlock in the Meadowlands if Xanadu is open on football Sundays.

Bob Sommer, a spokesman for Xanadu developers Mills Corp. and Mack-Cali, said he expects the two sides would meet shortly.

"It's exciting that there will be two brand-new outstanding venues at the sports authority," Sommer said.

"The projects are mutually beneficial, and I believe both sides recognize that fact."

The Giants have not determined exactly where the new stadium will be located, but it is expected to be north and east of the current location, closer to Route 120 and Continental Arena.

"We need to do some digging, to see what's under there - or who's under there," John Mara quipped, referring to the legend that former Teamster Jimmy Hoffa is buried somewhere on the stadium grounds.

E-mail: brennan@northjersey.com

spyguy

April 16th, 2005, 08:16 PM

People shouldn't get upset over the use of football for American football since many of these stadiums are alternatively used for football/soccer with regional or international touring teams.

Sounder

April 16th, 2005, 09:27 PM

One thing that is noticable is that NO stadiums in the US have a roof.

Check again. I reguarly attend Washington Husky games & Seattle Seahawk games both stadiums have a roof over the crowd.

At first i thought "then the crowd can't make any noise/chants", but then i realized - there are no supporters in the US!

Check again. Many American stadiums are loud & have a great atmosphere. Most of the college venues posted on the first post of this thread are loud & have great atmospheres.

The crowd is there to eat junkfood and be a part of the "show"/circus.

Are you talking about European soccer where they throw flares at players and have to play games in empty stadiums?

Come see a real football game in America at a good venue & you get to witness first hand the passion, noise, & atmosphere.

Sounder

April 16th, 2005, 09:29 PM

2nd Biggest Beaver Stadium just 5 minutes away!

May favorite american football stadiums have to be Qwest (Seattle)
The Swamp (U FLORIDA) and Autzen (U Oregon)

Ever been to Autzen? It isn't among the top half of stadiums in the Pac-10. It is an overrated dump.

dande

April 16th, 2005, 09:32 PM

Most of those big stadiums can pack in 100,000 + because they simply lack comfort of new modern stadiums. When you are in college you don´t really care about comfort while watching a game, in reality those stadiums would lose 40% of capacity if they raised the standards of the facilities. Red Star stadium in Belgrade used to be 100,000 stadium, now that it´s all-seater it seats "only" 68,000.

npinguy

April 18th, 2005, 03:30 AM

both the americans and the europeans are embarassing themselves greatly.

Jesus.............soccer is a great sport. It's not boring. Football is a great sport. It's not a pussified version of rugby.

Both are great. And supporters of teams on BOTH sides of the pond are always roudy and excited and loud.

And all of them do stupid things occasionally - on both sides.

A somewhat unrelated question but - does anyone know what the biggest HIGH SCHOOL stadium is in the US? I say in the US because I assume Canada or Europe wouldn't have the #1. I also know high school football is really huge in the south and they spend millions of dollars on it, so i'm sure there's some stadiums that are pretty large...

rantanamo

April 18th, 2005, 03:48 AM

Mesquite Memorial and Ratliff are both 20,000. Can't think of others that big.

Maroon Grown

April 18th, 2005, 04:41 AM

has america heard of roof's? howcome so many dont have a roof over the grandstands?

Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm

April 18th, 2005, 04:59 AM

has america heard of roof's? howcome so many dont have a roof over the grandstands?

Because American Football is all about inclement weather... and if the players are out in it, the fans like to as well. :dance:

asohn

April 18th, 2005, 05:50 AM

A somewhat unrelated question but - does anyone know what the biggest HIGH SCHOOL stadium is in the US? I say in the US because I assume Canada or Europe wouldn't have the #1. I also know high school football is really huge in the south and they spend millions of dollars on it, so i'm sure there's some stadiums that are pretty large...

I remember a thread on exactly this awhile back, but of course, without the search function, it doesn't do you much good. There are some high school stadiums that have capacities over 10,000. The largest is Ratliff Stadium in Odessa, Texas (where the movie Friday Night Lights takes place) which has a capacity of almost 20,000.

http://www.texasbob.com/travel/images/tbt_ratliff3.jpg

http://www.texasbob.com/travel/images/tbt_ratliff2.jpg

Alvar

April 18th, 2005, 10:02 AM

AAAARGH!!! There is no "real" football - football is a generic term for ball games played on foot. This argument is akin to beef and pork fans arguing ownership of the word "meat"... :bash:
So if football is a term for all sports played on foot so handball is played on your hands. Am i right?

rantanamo

April 18th, 2005, 10:25 AM

has america heard of roof's? howcome so many dont have a roof over the grandstands?

When I read posts like this, I realize that my stadium posts are simply not read and that it doesn't matter what is posted, people have their own ideas.

re: High School stadiums
Alamo Stadium(23,000) is listed as the biggest in Texas.

asohn

April 19th, 2005, 12:12 AM

So if football is a term for all sports played on foot so handball is played on your hands. Am i right?

No.

brummad

April 19th, 2005, 08:31 AM

pmsl dumbass

wolbol

April 24th, 2005, 05:56 PM

Can I ask a stupid question?
Are there any European soccer Stadions in the US?
that's something which I wonder for a long time

DarkFenX

April 24th, 2005, 06:08 PM

Can I ask a stupid question?
Are there any European soccer Stadions in the US?
that's something which I wonder for a long time
Well in Massachusetts, Gillette Stadium doubles as a football stadium for the Patriots and soccer for the Revolution.

carlspannoosh

April 24th, 2005, 06:18 PM

This is apparently the best specifically built for Soccer stadium in USA.
The Home Depot Center, Los Angeles 27000 capacity
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/rokstedy/Soccer/TT_LAPANO.jpg

rob12345

April 24th, 2005, 06:22 PM

leave the football name alone thats our name we was playing football long before american football

carlspannoosh

April 24th, 2005, 06:28 PM

:ohno:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=197918&page=1&pp=25

DarkFenX

April 24th, 2005, 06:51 PM

Ok for all those people who think American Football is a weaker ver. of rugby with all the padding, look at the pictures below.

Ok from these two pic, who is the bigger person?
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/SPORT/10/06/rugby.wcup.rules.reut/vstory.rugger.ap.jpg

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/17/173563.jpg

And from these two pictures, which tackle looks a lot harder and more painful?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39513000/jpg/_39513412_tackle_ap.jpg

http://www.claymoresftp.com/images/nfle2004/Training%20Camp/tackle.jpg

The reason why NFL players need more padding is their players are larger than rugby players. I remember that Rugby players can't tackle someone above the waist and they can't tackle hard. However these rules are non-existent in NFL. These guy can tackle really hard and without proper padding, you can get killed. Here is a few death that was related to football injuries.

In 1963, Kansas City running back Stone Johnson died 10 days after he broke his neck blocking on a kickoff return in an exhibition game. In 1960, New York Titans tackle Howard Glenn died within hours after breaking his neck.
Two college football players died from neck-related injuries in the past 15 years. Mississippi defensive back Chucky Mullins died 18 months after he was paralyzed during a tackle in 1989. Washington defensive back Curtis Williams sustained a similar injury in 2000 and died in 2002.

erki89

April 24th, 2005, 08:28 PM

Yeah, the death of a player is surely something to be proud of...

etched Chaos

April 24th, 2005, 08:45 PM

Dark FenX Thats an idiotic post... Your making assumptions about Rugby i know Gridiron players are big but not overly big in the Skill positions. rugby players have to have less bulk due to the amount of energy they have to exert and how they have to run... Do you ever see a O-Lineman running non-stop for 80 minutes?

Check out picture of Martin Johnson, Jonah Lomu, Rocokoko etc etc there are big Rugby players... You just won't find them cos your ignorant.

eddyk

April 24th, 2005, 09:31 PM

Rugby players are alot tougher IMO....its a much rougher game....players are constantly getting stamped on by metal studded boots and there are numerous fights in games!

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/rugbyhits.html

eddyk

April 24th, 2005, 09:38 PM

P.S
Rugby Players can tackle someone above the waist....its above the shoulders that isnt allowed....and with good reason!

http://msn.foxsports.com/id/3148782_7_1.jpg

rantanamo

April 24th, 2005, 10:45 PM

we already had this stupid debate in another part of the forum.

Zizu

April 24th, 2005, 11:11 PM

we already had this stupid debate in another part of the forum.

Right! :ancient:

TexasBoi

April 26th, 2005, 02:51 AM

big but not overly big in the Skill positions

I dont know why people keep saying this about football. The Wide Receiver position, QB position, running back position, DB position and others are skill positions. You just dont go out there and just think you can catch a ball in pressure so easily. It takes alot of skills to be the very best at these certain positions.

DarkFenX

April 26th, 2005, 03:10 AM

I dont know why people keep saying this about football. The Wide Receiver position, QB position, running back position, DB position and others are skill positions. You just dont go out there and just think you can catch a ball in pressure so easily. It takes alot of skills to be the very best at these certain positions.
I agree. Any wrong angle of movement between the reciever and the QB may spell interception which may lead to a loss. It is very key to know where you are going and when to look for a postion where you are open to catch the ball.

Trey Howe

April 26th, 2005, 03:15 AM

Well i actually played college football. I didn't even bother with playing "kickball"/ "socqueer ball"/ "kick-a-thon". Soccer may be just about the most borrrrrrrrring sport ever invented. Football is just better, so therefore since Americans are better, we play a better sport. Nuff said.

by the way, i heard that we (the US) is slowly but surely getting better than the rest of the world in soccer too. Pretty sad considering nobody gives 2 sh!ts about it here

Oh, i am ready for the hateful responses.....

kingdomca

April 26th, 2005, 03:29 AM

Didnt an australian lose his life in the oxford v Cambridge university rugby game some 5-10 years ago?
I think there have been at least one case of paralysis following each world cup, though alert and good sportmanship saved someone at the most recent competition as the pushing stopped following his cry of "neck" as he had felt it snap.
I also remember the welsh captain lying paralysed, I think, not too many years ago. Generally there are fatalaties every year in british rugby but its nothing to be proud off and is a real threat to the game beyond the obvious as some schools and clubs have abandoned the game fearing lawsuits.

Contesting rugby scrums is more dangerous than american football regarding the really serious stuff but also the usual minor incidents happening non-stop in rugby.
I wouldnt want to play rugby, frankly, look at the forwards, they are a battered bleeding mess some getting a permanent rugby-forward appearance scars from hundreds of stitches, messed-up nose, ears etc. Fist fights are common, stamping and eye-gouging as well. current players have had ears torn right off and experienced split testicles, though this of course is more rare than just the usual constant sewing of players during blood-bins.

npinguy

April 26th, 2005, 03:56 AM

Well i actually played college football. I didn't even bother with playing "kickball"/ "socqueer ball"/ "kick-a-thon". Soccer may be just about the most borrrrrrrrring sport ever invented. Football is just better, so therefore since Americans are better, we play a better sport. Nuff said.

actually hockey >>>>> football and soccer, hence Canadians are better than Americans.

yes? I think so.

by the way, i heard that we (the US) is slowly but surely getting better than the rest of the world in soccer too. Pretty sad considering nobody gives 2 sh!ts about it here

HA yeah right.

PHXbevo

April 26th, 2005, 08:25 AM

actually hockey >>>>> football and soccer, hence Canadians are better than Americans.

yes? I think so.

HA yeah right.

The USA is ranked 10th in the world. England 6. Here we come brits ;)

Jerv

April 26th, 2005, 09:05 AM

eddyk

April 26th, 2005, 01:50 PM

Well i actually played college football. I didn't even bother with playing "kickball"/ "socqueer ball"/ "kick-a-thon". Soccer may be just about the most borrrrrrrrring sport ever invented. Football is just better, so therefore since Americans are better, we play a better sport. Nuff said.

Utter bollocks!

Ive tried and ive tried to watch US Football but I cant its sooooooooooooo boring....run arounf for 7 seconds then stop for 3 minutes....oh my god!

World Football is more exciting and more popular than US football will ever be!

:2cents:

P.S
The two most popular sports in the world Happen to be Cricket and World Football....if you dont like it....tough

rantanamo

April 26th, 2005, 01:54 PM

That's great that you've tried something, but what does it have to do with large outdoor stadiums in the U.S.?

JacobRit

April 26th, 2005, 01:56 PM

stop it! its all subjective! sheesh.... p.s. Rugby players? Small? you say that with jonah lomu or ben Cohen steaming at you with the ball!

cpddavis

April 26th, 2005, 03:45 PM

This is so stupid. Let me tell you as somebody who has played football and is a huge fan of it and who currently plays rugby (and has for over 10 years) that they are both extremely physical games.

However, there is simply no way you could play football games with a rugby kit and not have your entire team seriously injured within a couple of games. The stop-start nature of the game ensures that collisions are much more violent than in rugby. Attempting to tackle and block in that manner without protection would be ridiculous. Can you imagine a wide reciever going up for a ball on a slant or deep post completely exposed and taking a hit from a fast as hell 6'1 210 lb safety who doesn't have to worry about getting up and making another play immediately after or trying to steal the ball on the ground? Or how about a quarterback taking a blindside hit from a 270 lb defensive end or 245 lb linebacker coming off the edge. Careers would be over in very, very short order. As it is quarterbacks suffer from concussions quite often even with the helmet.

Rugby tackling is more about finesse and being in an advantageous postion after the tackle is more important than a few extra yards. Not that it isn't tough because it is, but the collision are just not at the level of football collisions. You are also less likely to be gang tackled since tacklers have to be aware and count on the ball changing hands multiple times before a tackle is made. In football it is eleven guys trying to kill one and the other ten be damned.

Very different in that respect. I love them both.

http://www.lhab.org/photos/upload/tower_1_baseball.jpg

eddyk

April 26th, 2005, 03:55 PM

I would say rugby tackles are softer and harder than American football tackles!

Softer because both players dont have pads on and the tackler is less likely to do something crazy like diving at him from 5 feet away like you see in the NFL....but harder because well...they dont wear all the pads!

But if the truth be told I would rather be on the end of a US football tackle than a rugby one.

I remember playing rugby at school at break (recess) during the 2003 world cup cup....about 100 of us chasing the ball....you would chase the kid kick him to death as he was running trying to get the ball....and once you did get it you wish you hadnt as you then become the target to fists and boots...all in good fun though ;)

PHXbevo

April 26th, 2005, 07:44 PM

The fifa world rankings bear little resemblance to the actual order of world soccer. USA only play teams like Canada and Jamaica and so gain quite a lot of ranking points. I can think of at least 12 better teams in Europe and 5 South American teams, not to mention the african and asian teams.

uh-huh.

meanwhile, England plays such powerhouses as:

30/03/2005 Azerbaijan W 2-0
26/03/2005 Northern Ireland W 4-0
09/02/2005 Holland D 0-0
17/11/2004 Spain L 1-0
13/10/2004 Azerbaijan W 1-0
09/10/2004 Wales W 2-0
08/09/2004 Poland W 2-1
04/09/2004 Austria D 2-2
18/08/2004 Ukraine W 3-0
24/06/2004 Portugal L 2-2

holy smokes ... its amazing y'all arent ranked the world's #1 :|

meanwhile, these are the USA's recent results:

Feb. 9 Trinidad & Tobago 2-1 W Johnson
March 9 Colombia 3-0 W
March 19 Honduras 1-0 W
March 27 Mexico 1-2 L
March 30 Guatemala 2-0 W
Jan. 18 Denmark 1-1 T
Feb. 18 Holland 0-1 L
March 13 Haiti 1-1 T
March 31 Poland 1-0 W
Apr. 28 Mexico 1-0 W
June 2 Honduras 4-0 W
June 13 Grenada 3-0 W
June 20 Grenada 3-2 W
July 11 Poland 1-1 T
Aug. 18 Jamaica 1-1 T
Sept. 4 El Salvador 2-0 W
Sept. 9 Panama City 1-1 T
Oct. 10 El Salvador 2-0 W
Oct. 13 Panama 6-0 W
Nov. 17 Jamaica 1-1 T

I think the rankings are fair and accurate.

rantanamo

April 26th, 2005, 07:48 PM

But if the truth be told I would rather be on the end of a US football tackle than a rugby one.

Let's run two unpadded people into each other, vs running two people in opposing cars at each other. Which would most likely hurt the people the most? I think the most misunderstood part about the pads in football is that they somehow stop pain. The pads are more like seatbelts and helmet as opposed to airbags. You still feel the pain, but the helmets stops your brain enough to not splatter from a basal skull injury..............most of the time. It hasn't always worked. Shoulder pads, or anything on the legs do absolutely nothing and are more for reducing calcium deposits from deep bone bruising. Period, you don't want to be tackled by Ray Lewis or Derrick Johnson on a regular basis. Rugby is rough, but the pads in hockey or football simply allow another level of contact by participants. Pads encourage harder and more violent contact.

eddyk

April 26th, 2005, 08:33 PM

"Let's run two unpadded people into each other, vs running two people in opposing cars at each other. Which would most likely hurt the people the most?"

Misleading comment....I would rather be in a car getting hit by another car at 20mph than getting run into by a man at 20mph

Still....I would rather go and play US football...because im a wuss!

Dont get me wrong I know its rough....but I think rugby is more rough!

I know a profesional US football player will lose 15 years of his life....not sure what rugby players lose....appart from their looks ;)

World Football players are also at danger of an early death from heading the ball too often....its have happened before!

Im not sure if youve headed a solid ball flying in at 50mph but it does rattle your brain!

erki89

April 26th, 2005, 08:46 PM

Good that i'm really bad in heading :p

rantanamo

April 26th, 2005, 10:00 PM

Sport for wussies with world class speed and strength

http://www.ece.utk.edu/%7Eeboyd/NFL%27s%20Greatest%20Hits.mpg

etched Chaos

April 27th, 2005, 06:25 AM

Rantanamo, lighten up will you, eddyk isn;t saying American Football si a game for wussies he mertely saying he'd rather get hit by someone in pads than someone without. I play American Football and played Rugby for 7 years. There is no real difference, in Rugby especially if you a Forward you'll take more knocks and hits than an American Footballer will ever take in a game (barring a 30 touch a game Half-back) the hits aren't as violent but the punishment builds up to create the same effect. Also my injury list from Rugby is long, My lower body alone is shot to pieces because of the game and I only played at Junior - Colts level.

Thats not to say i won't get many injuries from american Football, but I prefer tackling with pads on, there is nothing to prevent you from going at full-whack and hitting someone... But Rantanamo until you play rugby for a prolonged period of time, i think your words about the sport should be ignored, you have no basis to make comparisons.

rantanamo

April 27th, 2005, 06:49 AM

why are you asking me to lighten up? I merely explained and showed something.

Do you play in the NFL? D-1 or 2 college football? Until you play at these levels your words should be ignored as well. The difference in size/strength, etc make these levels different from high school, semi-pro, div III, etc. What makes any of your, especially European posters that haven't played or really know nothing about FOOTBALL, anymore important or correct than mine?

The same happens in every post. Something American is said to be inferior, we explain otherwise or that we simply have different philosophies, the subject is changed and our sports are said to be inferior, unpopular, etc, etc. I see a pattern.

etched Chaos

April 27th, 2005, 10:45 AM

Cut the crap Rantanamo I never said American Football was inferior, why do you feel so slighted by everyone? i know a heck of alot about Football but because I'm 'European' i can't know anything because we Europeans couldn't possibly know much about Gridiron now could we? I never said that American Football is inferior i said that the opunishment is about the same because in Rugby its an accumulation in American Football its all-out hitting. If you think about it, both are similar sports but use hitting in different contexts, in Rugby its about wrapping up the player in American Football its about putting them to ground.

Now please enlighten me as to where in this i made American Football out to be inferior? I haven't I've merely made my own comparisons and whats does it matter about what level you play at? So i play at Amateur Level who is to say that we don't hit hard or that there are players here that won't hurt people? Your acting like we could never emulate the great Americans at that sports, its not the point that the middle linebacker i play with is going to walk into an American College next season or that we have several players from our league now in NFL-Europe. When you learn to open your eyes, I'm sure the Europeans will too.

rantanamo

April 27th, 2005, 05:16 PM

No one said you did, but the fact is you went straight to my post saying that I can't speak on it, when you have a post(really a board) full of people that have only watched limited action of FOOTBALL and I don't see this same chastising of them from you.

Your acting like we could never emulate the great Americans at that sports

I have read the same thing several times in the other direction, specifically with regard to soccer, despite the US playing without the countries best athletes have had a lot more success than most of the non-European world. You talk of a guy walking into an American college, but there are almost as many college football teams as there are high school. Even I could have played if I liked. It all depends on if a scholarship is given to a major school. Those are the elite athletes. The level of an NFL Europe team is pretty much at the major college level. Basically its guys that NFL teams want to evaluate. Most guys there aren't good enough to play even on the bench in the NFL. That's why they are there.

The entire world has great athletes, but its just funny when guys talk of Lomu being big strong and fast, when there are tons of guys like Julius Peppers, KGB, Simeon Rice, etc, etc, etc, that are bigger, stronger and faster.

eddyk

April 27th, 2005, 05:29 PM

"Still....I would rather go and play US football...because im a wuss!"

When I said that....I was speaking as if I had a choice between the two sports!

Theres actually a well know saying in the rugby world....

'Give blood...play Rugby'

It truely is a blood sport!

rantanamo

April 27th, 2005, 06:08 PM

And you can make that choice from just watching while I cannot? Interesting. Blood, hahaha. Ask Teddy Bruschi or Ray Lewis about that.

CharlieP

April 27th, 2005, 06:42 PM

leave the football name alone thats our name we was playing football long before american football

And people were playing football long before soccer - what's your point?

rantanamo

April 27th, 2005, 06:50 PM

????? now I am really confused.

eddyk

April 27th, 2005, 07:21 PM

And you can make that choice from just watching while I cannot? Interesting. Blood, hahaha. Ask Teddy Bruschi or Ray Lewis about that.

Yes blood....I cant remember the last time ive seen a rugby match which hasnt had blood in it!

There is alot of head bashing, elbowing, kicking etc.

http://rugby2000.com/graphics/plates/rlp02L.gif

etched Chaos

April 27th, 2005, 07:30 PM

Rantanamo I'm not going to chasticise them all because you seem to do that well yourself. I find the whole bit that you think we all don't have the same level of knowledge to be a knock on me as well... I love the sport, i love it to the point that i was listening to the later rounds of the NFL Draft on an online Radio. I just take your general statements to be offensive to me, because your not accepting the fact that there are huge NFL fans in Europe.
I know gusy like Julius Peppers are great athletes, i know that I'd never want to get hit by Ray Lewis, but don't talk down the players we have over here because they're not NFL standard... its not exactly easy to become NFL standard now is it? But we give every hit as if our lives depend on it and it could be our last, we play just as hard but not at as high a level.

rantanamo

April 27th, 2005, 08:12 PM

Dude, now you are totally off of it. I'm not even addressing you, etched. Being knowlegeable about football as you are, you have to admit that a lot of the posts(ok, 99%) are very ignorant of football and show that over and over. I am not bunching you into that group. We know there are fans there or NFL Europe wouldn't exist anymore. Its your own compatriots that you must convince of that.

I apologize if I am talking down your players. That was not my intention. I'm glad you guys give it your all and our great fans of our sport. Hard nosed football is always appreciated. Again, when I am debating the merits of the sport, it is obviously not a debate versus the likes of yourself. You understand. My contention is that your post are directed towards myself and not towards the posts from your own compatriots that really don't know anything about football. I don't know how long you have been posting here, but we have suffered this ignorance as the minority posters for a long long time. That's why the underdog role that some new posters try to take on for Europe is surprising and very ironic to many of us who have posted here for a while. We have heard all of this before.

Trey Howe

April 28th, 2005, 01:48 AM

Actually, the size difference between D1 and D3 isn't that big anymore. D 2 football is sort of it's own thing. The national D-III champ had a bigger offensive line than Ohio States. The areas are graying. The biggest difference in football is that in college it really doesn't matter what division it is.....the hits are hard and fast. High school is different because the players are still teenagers. Being hit by a fully grown 22 yrs old man is quite different than being hit by a 17yr old boy (Trust me on this one, i know from experience). I actually signed with a Division-I program, but ended up going to a D-III school for $ reasons. D-III men can play ball.

rantanamo

April 28th, 2005, 04:35 AM

You can say there isn't much difference, D3 men can play ball, but the speed/strength/skill difference is still huge. D3 would still get it handed to them pretty well. That's why you very very rarely, if ever get D3 players to the next level of ball. And you are right about 17 vs 22 year old. How about 22 vs 26? That's even a bigger difference because the level and time of training increases. That's the difference between football and other sports. IF a 17,18,19 year old has the skill in most sports they can compete. They have no shot in football because they would not have the body or mental capacity to take the pounding.

etched Chaos

April 28th, 2005, 06:18 AM

Thats fair enough, but from my standpoint it looks as if you guys are the bigger dogs around here other than Eddyk and a few others you guys seems to rule the roost but then thats from my own POV and i was only trying to even things up a bit. Of course I'm in the wrong position to do so I love American Football, Soccer and Rugby so to pick a favourite would be asanine on my behalf.

panamared

April 28th, 2005, 06:33 AM

TexasBoi

April 28th, 2005, 06:55 AM

sorry but football is football , american football should be call american handball o running ball somthing like that , the only country in the world that is trying to call football whit another name "soccer" and i dont know why.

the only country in the world that calls it soccer??? Are you sure about that?

CrazyCanuck

April 28th, 2005, 07:34 AM

Canadians call it soccer too.

PHXbevo

April 28th, 2005, 09:36 AM

sorry but football is football , american football should be call american handball o running ball somthing like that , the only country in the world that is trying to call football whit another name "soccer" and i dont know why.

The homeland of the game, England, invented the term "soccer", denoting "association football" ... dumbass.

etched Chaos

April 28th, 2005, 09:51 AM

I just find it weird that oxford students coined the Word 'Soccer' and yet we English never use it. It has firmly been adopted by American and similar countries to have other variations on the name of Football...

The Game Is Up

April 28th, 2005, 10:14 AM

All I could say at this point is imagine if a woman were to be reading this silly debate over which is the "true man's man roughest sport". :laugh: Some of us guys like to take it to the nth degree. Keeps us away from reality for a while. :moods: :pet:

Carry on

JARdan

May 2nd, 2005, 12:48 AM

This photo looks photo-shopped:
17. Kyle Field - College Station, TX - 80,650 seats

http://yosemite.tamu.edu/images/kyle-field.jpg

eddyk

May 2nd, 2005, 12:59 AM

I think the lack of a cockpit on the plane closest to us gives it away!

eddyk

May 2nd, 2005, 01:34 AM

Wrong thread!

PHXbevo

May 2nd, 2005, 04:16 AM

This photo looks photo-shopped:

thats because it is, James Bond.

CharlieP

May 2nd, 2005, 05:20 PM

Canadians call it soccer too.

And Australians, and New Zealanders, and South Africans, and the Irish, and English, Scottish and Welsh in certain circumstances...

cpddavis

May 4th, 2005, 05:25 AM

Gawd, Kyle Field is an ugly monstrosity.

cpddavis

May 4th, 2005, 05:31 AM

Gawd, Kyle Field is an ugly monstrosity.

Malt

May 4th, 2005, 06:06 AM

Im not trying to start arguements here...

But most of these stadiums, while being extremly impressive when you see them full of people, are extremly ugly.. and look like if your not in the front few rows your view would be shithouse.

(Excluding a couple such as Reliant Stadium, Seahawks stadium, and Memorial Stadium)

The 'Pro' league stadiums are better are they not?
I know this is a thread for outdoor stadiums, but can anyone post the Pro ones?

rantanamo

May 4th, 2005, 06:38 AM

I've been trying to post 3 or four professional stadiums each week. Just follow the board down a few posts and you will see plenty of them. They are on average much much nicer than college stadiums. I would disagree with the views comment though. Even on top of the huge upper deck and DKR, the view is great. College stadiums just tend to be larger and old expansion as they house large alumni followings and are more concerned with getting them in and keeping tradition than out-doing the next stadium. There's no threat of a college team moving nor do they compete for Super Bowl bids.

Malt

May 4th, 2005, 07:32 AM

^ I cant imagine the views would be good.
A Stadium in Brisbane (ANZ) Is sort of like some of those American College ones (not a steep slope on the seating, goes out further) and i was in the main grand stand, and The views werent good at all (For rugby league)..

These massive stadiums are like 3-5 times bigger with the same arrangement.

Ill browse through now for the pro stadiums.

(Most stadiums here are steeper in the stands ans SEEM to hold more people closer to the field. And im pretty sure the Pro US ones would do the same thing, thats why i asked)

MickeyRivers

May 8th, 2005, 10:27 PM

great thread... there are some great college fball stadiums that i haven't seen mentioned yet though, that hold a lot of people:

williams-brice stadium, columbia sc (where i currently attend school; go gamecocks!), capacity: 80,250
http://hometown.aol.com/arsporty1/arial_view.gif
http://www.collegegridirons.com/sec/images/williamsmain.jpg
http://www.collegegridirons.com/sec/images/williams151.jpg

florida state's doak-campbell, capacity: 80,000
http://www.collegegridirons.com/acc/images/doak104.jpg]
http://www.collegegridirons.com/acc/images/doak100.jpg

georgia's sanford stadium, capacity: 92,746
http://www.collegegridirons.com/sec/sanfordmain.jpg
http://www.collegegridirons.com/sec/sanford100.jpg
http://www.collegegridirons.com/sec/sanford102.jpg

alabama's bryant-denny, capacity: 83,818
http://www.collegegridirons.com/sec/images/bryantdenny103.jpg
http://www.collegegridirons.com/sec/images/bryantdenny102.jpg

a couple things about these college stadiums, most of them were built long ago and just added onto through the years. that's why many of them don't look as modern as professional teams stadiums. they aren't. williams-brice was actually opened in 1934, w/a capacity of around 20,000 or so, but has been expanded over the years. another expansion is in the works to push capacity over 90k.

another thing is, most of these college stadiums are in small towns, since the universities are. especially in the sec... it's odd really. i've been to a few away games and it's a unique experience. you drive for hours past cow pastures and forests and then out of nowhere there is a 90k seat mega-structure.

rantanamo

May 9th, 2005, 01:24 AM

Doak Campbell's structure is just beautiful. Its amazing how ugly that place used to be. Now its like a cathedral of pain.

ArchMadness

May 9th, 2005, 02:02 AM

The website needs some photo updates. I don't have any photos of my own, but these sites all have some real nice updates. This thing is really coming along.

Ballpark Construction website (http://www.ballparkconstruction.com/default.asp)

Cardinals main page (photo gallery on left side of page) (http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stl/ballpark/stl_ballpark_newpark_newballpark.jsp)

PDF Construction update from the official contractor (http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/stl/downloads/new_ballpark/update_042505.pdf)

MSPSCO3113

May 13th, 2005, 06:13 AM

looks like a nice stadium, i wish the Twins were getting a new park for sure. Lucky bastards in STL.

PrinzPaulEugen

June 4th, 2005, 05:32 PM

We have all the forms of football in the world in Australia (except Canadian), and we tend to be good at all of them (especially Australian Football, I believe we are the undisputed champions at that). Soccer (as we call it here). Rugby Union. Rugby League. Australian Football. American Football (there are Australians playing - mainly as kickers I think, but they're there). Gaelic football even. Anyway, no form of footy is better than any other, it is just what you grow up with and what you played as a kid and what you like. To argue about it is to push sh%t up a hill. Enjoy whatever game you dudes like - I am happy because the NQ Cowboys flogged the Cronulla Sharks (League), and Brisbane beat Fremantle (Aussie Rules).

SDK4

June 5th, 2005, 04:38 AM

You have to love the outside of Doak Campbell Stadium. Beautiful!

Bigmac1212

June 7th, 2005, 10:13 PM

Apparently, the University of Central Florida doesn't want to play its (American) football games 15 miles away from campus at the Florida Citris Bowl. There's a website that talks about building a 40,000 seat stadium on campus grounds. Here's the website:

UCF Stadium Site (http://www.stadium.ucf.edu/home.html)

I don't know if you can put up PDF's on this site, but here goes for the pictures:
http://www.stadium.ucf.edu/PDF%20Files/UCF_01.pdf
http://www.stadium.ucf.edu/PDF%20Files/UCF_02.pdf
http://www.stadium.ucf.edu/PDF%20Files/UCF_03.pdf
http://www.stadium.ucf.edu/PDF%20Files/UCF_04.pdf
http://www.stadium.ucf.edu/PDF%20Files/UCF_05.pdf

To me, it looks like a miniture Michigan Stadium, except without a "notch" on the side opposite of the press box. It looks pretty bland as well.

PHXbevo

June 8th, 2005, 12:10 AM

eddyk

June 8th, 2005, 12:17 AM

Come on.....NY IMO only wanted the games for the sake of hosting the games....which isnt the same anywhere else...

the other 4 cities all have major regeneration plans, er planned.

Will get kids involved in sport, and its great fun to watch...

I mean, you wouldnt say no the the World Cup or any other huge even would you!?

Waste of Money?

Every Olympic games since LA have made huge profits....gotta spend money to make money.

SYDNEY

June 8th, 2005, 12:27 AM

The last thing any Third World/Developing Country needs is to host the Olympics. These countries should put their citizens needs first and concentrate on making life better for them.

Some people still care for the 3rd World (including Mozambique) albeit only a fraction of the globe.

PHXbevo

June 8th, 2005, 12:40 AM

I mean, you wouldnt say no the the World Cup or any other huge even would you!?

irrelevant. The world cup is hosted by an entire country in 8-10 cities in mostly completed, soccer-only venues. And soccer is much, much, much more interesting than Mens Volleyball or Rowing.

Waste of Money?

Every Olympic games since LA have made huge profits....gotta spend money to make money.

are you kidding? Hello? Greece? Forget that one? ATL only made money because they sold their souls to McDonalds, Coke, and Mars Corp.

Sydney will go down as the last great olympics. and it was a fantastic event. way to polish a turd Australia.

eddyk

June 8th, 2005, 12:47 AM

Oh well....im not sure about you but 4 other countries (maybe not as much Moscow) are going to be really hurt in a months time...every country want this, I want this....the UK and London needs this....its not about the money, I love the Olympics, I never left the TV when they were on...I had more of a party after Britain won the 4X100m gold medal than when Liverpool won the semi final of the CL

Mr. T

June 8th, 2005, 12:56 AM

Sydney will go down as the last great olympics. and it was a fantastic event. way to polish a turd Australia.

Sorry but the Athens Olympics did come away with a profit of over 160 million dollars. The did not lose any money over the Athens Olympics.

http://ap.lancasteronline.com/4/oly_athens_profit

ATHENS, Greece (AP) - The most expensive Olympics in history posted a surplus of $166.79 million for the Athens organizing committee.

The committee, known as ATHOC, was only responsible for the organization and operation of the games last August. Overall, the Olympics cost Greece more than $14.05 billion.

"We have not only succeeded in our goal of a balanced budget but at the same time posted a surplus," ATHOC said in a statement Thursday.

The task and cost of building sports venues and infrastructure fell to the government, which also paid for a record security bill of more than $1.53 billion.

The high cost of the games pushed Greece's budget deficit to record levels. At 6.3 percent of GDP, Greece had the biggest budget deficit in the European Union last year.

ATHOC, a private body, said it had revenues of $2.67 billion and expenses of $2.43 billion. The committee gave the Greek state $157.85 million to cover the cost of some Olympic projects, leaving it with $8.97 million.

Television rights generated the biggest revenues at $739.06 million, or 27.6 percent. Money from international and domestic sponsors totaled $685.42 million, or 25.6 percent.

PHXbevo

June 8th, 2005, 01:26 AM

160 MM? Big Deal. Thats like the GDP of El Paso, Texas.

thats about like breaking even

heavyzakura334

June 8th, 2005, 01:30 AM

The comments of PHXbevo illustrate the great divide between many Americans and the rest of the world. Any country that gets to host the Olympics is graced by international athletes and their sport. NYC did certainly want the olympics. (or those who would make money really wanted them at least) However, I am glad that NYC did not get it, I am sure it would have been used as a tool to bolster patriotism in America and NYC, something many of us have gotting sick of. The abuse of patriotism, the word and the idea, the feeling etc. I would have been something like "Drink Coca-Cola, watch the Olympics-- it's patriotic... or something of that sort. Eventhough NYC is an awesome place, it does not deserve it, I have seen many more London, Paris and Madrid hype about the Olympics. Though I am opposed to these capitalist ways in which sport is abused, the Olympics are an honor to host and are deserved by the best bidder.

that is all i have to say :cheers:

BTW-volleyball, beach volleyball especially, is much more fun to watch than a bunch of 300 pound guys pushing each other for a peanut. ;)

PHXbevo

June 8th, 2005, 02:01 AM

The comments of PHXbevo illustrate the great divide between many Americans and the rest of the world.

no it doesnt. dont try to turn this into a USA vs the world thread.

btw, i'd like a classy organization like FIFA to bring the WC back to the USA or even some more Premeirship friendlies. those are the athletes i want on american soil, not some injected, primmadonna sprinter and his entourage.

heavyzakura334

June 8th, 2005, 02:10 AM

hahaha.... no, don't worry, I am not trying to start a US vs. the world thing going on. but sure, why not, let's bring back FIFA. that is a good idea, the US needs it.

I just mean to emphasize that many Americans do not appreciate many sports. Any sport is worthwhile, I am just saying that you have a very narrow view about what sport really is.

Morten M

June 8th, 2005, 02:21 AM

irrelevant. The world cup is hosted by an entire country in 8-10 cities in mostly completed, soccer-only venues. And soccer is much, much, much more interesting than Mens Volleyball or Rowing.

I agree the olympics are the event for all the boring sports, who are not big enough to have their own event.
Womens volleyball is okay..... :)

PHXbevo

June 8th, 2005, 02:37 AM

I just mean to emphasize that many Americans do not appreciate many sports. Any sport is worthwhile, I am just saying that you have a very narrow view about what sport really is.

the irony is dripping in that post

actually, the USA is probably one of the most diverse sporting countries in the world. name a sport, its played en masse in the states. That should be evident in the amount of medals we always win in every games in various sports. its not even close.

Oh, and we also give high regard to women's athletics ... probably something from which a ton of other countries could learn, especially where women themselves are regarded as secondary citizens * cough* Mexico.

BTW, i say that as a 2nd generation Mexican-American

asohn

June 8th, 2005, 03:09 AM

It looks a bit plain, but nice. I assume they went with the bowl layout so that they could add tiers in the future if neceasry.

Jasonhouse

June 8th, 2005, 03:24 AM

It's pretty nice, except for the stadium lighting, which is at a low angle (not good for shadows and for staying out of players' eyes)... But the lighting thing is OK, because it's quite obvious that the stadium is designed in such a way that upper levels can be added later.

btw, you should also create a thread about this in the Florida subforum of NASF. I think it would be of some interest to folks in there.

Mr. T

June 8th, 2005, 03:53 AM

160 MM? Big Deal. Thats like the GDP of El Paso, Texas.

thats about like breaking even

I never said it was a lot but am just proving that your statement that Athens lsot money on the games was wrong. If the U.S., Australia had not made Greece spend 1.5 billion on un-needed security just imagine how much more the Olympics would have made.

szehoong

June 8th, 2005, 04:29 AM

160 MM? Big Deal. Thats like the GDP of El Paso, Texas.

thats about like breaking even

Well the profit for the organisers is just the tip of the iceberg. The big thing is what it does to the country's economy.

But I guess that NYC is rich enough and the US is rich. But then again I wonder why so many other US cities are eyeing on the Olympics. ;)

Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm

June 8th, 2005, 04:46 AM

Only thing that sucks is that the New York Jets wont get their new stadium on the West Side.

That stadium was architectural trash, the Jets deserve better than that.

divi0013

June 8th, 2005, 06:25 AM

meh, i'm not sure that i deeply care where the olympics goes...i've never really watched them, london or paris would be pretty though :)

Tom_Green

June 8th, 2005, 06:58 AM

Good Choice NYC! (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/07/sports/OLY.php)

I bet millions of New Yorkers are overwhelmingly sighing releif at the ridiculous notion of an olympics in the City. WTF does New York have to prove to the world, which is the top, or one of the top 2 or 3 world class cities on the planet. London and Paris should follow suit. The olympics are dead as dead and a monumental waste of money. Let Mozambique host it for the next century, who fucking cares?

Only thing that sucks is that the New York Jets wont get their new stadium on the West Side.

You stand very alone with your opinion.
I bet millions of New Yorkers are overwhelmingly sighing releif at the ridiculous notion of an olympics in the City.
I bet against it.

The Olympics are the biggest event in the world. Around 2 billion people watched the start of the olympic games in Athen. I think the most Americans did that, too. Okay you didn`t but you belong to the minority. It is one of the greatest honour for a city to host the olympic games. The greatest citys in the world want the games and they fight against each other and the best wins.

PHXbevo

June 8th, 2005, 07:05 AM

trust me, new yorkers didnt want this. go do a poll of nyc'ers and see what you find. they HATED the idea.

kota16

June 8th, 2005, 09:00 AM

So when New York and Moscow drop out of the first vote, does it mean that the USA votes will be behind London rather than Paris?. France has been arrogant to many in the wider world, including countries in the Pacific area, so I imagine they will vote London as being a secure and safe venue. All the window dressing might be in vain, it is really about where people will feel comfortable.

Christianmx

June 8th, 2005, 09:32 AM

the irony is dripping in that post

actually, the USA is probably one of the most diverse sporting countries in the world. name a sport, its played en masse in the states. That should be evident in the amount of medals we always win in every games in various sports. its not even close.

Oh, and we also give high regard to women's athletics ... probably something from which a ton of other countries could learn, especially where women themselves are regarded as secondary citizens * cough* Mexico.

BTW, i say that as a 2nd generation Mexican-American

1. I think it's a shame that New York won't host the olympics and it must be pretty frustrating for the other American cities that wanted to host them too to see that New York could not even keep its bid together. :no:

2. Your post about Mexico is nothing but pure BS. Not only did your statement come out of your ass but it has nothing to do with the thread and it is kind of funny coming from you. The United States is not an example to follow as far as that is concerned. Man! I would not be surprised if we had more congress women than you for example! pff!!!

samsonyuen

June 8th, 2005, 10:10 AM

heavyzakura334

June 8th, 2005, 10:16 AM

PHXbevo I am not saying that sports are not played in the US, however, I am saying and adamantly refuse to retract my statement about "... many Americans [that] do not appreciate many sports. Any sport is worthwhile, I am just saying that you have a very narrow view about what sport really is."

that is all that I am saying, and you can't prove me wrong, this thread is a testament to this fact.

for example, statements such as primmadonna sprinter and his entourage.
andsoccer is much, much, much more interesting than Mens Volleyball or Rowing.

further demonstrate that you have a narrow mind when it comes to sports. Every sports has its art. ;)

BTW, i say that as a 2nd generation Mexican-American
and what does that have to do with anything? you can be Chicano, Latino, Hispano, Michoacano or from wherever, your statement about women's sports in Mexico holds no more value that anyone else's even if you are what ever you call your self. :blahblah:

Oh, and we also give high regard to women's athletics ... probably something from which a ton of other countries could learn, especially where women themselves are regarded as secondary citizens * cough* Mexico.

About this, since you seem to care so much about soccer and women's equality within the US, why dont you state that the Women's Professional Soccer League has been canceled because of the lack of sponsors and support. talk about a society letting down its women and treating them as second class citizens. :laugh:

read the full story about trying to do the re-launch:
Women’s Soccer Initiative, Inc. (WSII) To Steer WUSA Re-launch
December 7, 2004 - WSII Taps Sports Business Veteran Tonya Antonucci as CEOhttp://www.wusa.com/news/?id=1723

nick_taylor

June 8th, 2005, 11:29 AM

It sounds a bit like sour grapes. I think NY would/will someday host a fantastic Olympic games, it's just this bid was very flawed and doesn't compare with the frontrunners. I think USOC's votes will go to London after the first round.Exactly, I somehow doubt that PHXbevo would be saying this, had New York come out on tops or with a genuine chance of actually hosting the Olympics. His timing with this thread after New York was effectively shown to be put down behind London and Paris by the IOC and the fact that the West Side Stadium has quite literally been shelved because of disagreements over its funding could haven't been more worse. Talk about being a sore loser by then attacking the Olympics and somehow claiming New York didn't want them...I believe over 57% wanted them in NYC, thats more than what Bush got elected on in the US...

PHXbevo

June 8th, 2005, 02:56 PM

Exactly, I somehow doubt that PHXbevo would be saying this, had New York come out on tops or with a genuine chance of actually hosting the Olympics. His timing with this thread after New York was effectively shown to be put down behind London and Paris by the IOC and the fact that the West Side Stadium has quite literally been shelved because of disagreements over its funding could haven't been more worse. Talk about being a sore loser by then attacking the Olympics and somehow claiming New York didn't want them...I believe over 57% wanted them in NYC, thats more than what Bush got elected on in the US...

nah. look up past posts of mine. i've been a detractor of NYC olympics all along. The olympics and the IOC are fucking ridiculous.

Actually, i've wanted London all along, as it is my favorite foreign city in the world, and has most of the facilities being built or already built. Also, it has the square milage, infrastructure, transportation, and delightful people to actually be able to host this event. Plus, i wont have to wake up at the crack of ass to watch the events, especially the basketball games. I have to say that my only concern is attendence, as England is slightly tougher to get to than Athens or Barcelona, and has a smaller population than Australia.

BTW, i watched about 80% of coverage of the last olympics, including mens and womens rowing, mens and womens fencing, mens and womens cycling, judo, etc and other marginal sports. Of course i watched the main events, like boxing, basketball, soccer, baseball, and track and field. I'm a pretty huge sports fan ... in fact i rules about 95% of my life ... my fiancee gets annoyed by it. :)

carlspannoosh

June 8th, 2005, 04:19 PM

I have to say that my only concern is attendence, as England is slightly tougher to get to than Athens or Barcelona, and has a smaller population than Australia.

England has more than twice the population of Australia.
Australias population is approximately 20 million, Britains population is nearer 60 million.

PHXbevo

June 8th, 2005, 04:31 PM

yeah, i guess you're right. had my figures wrong. my bad.

samsonyuen

June 8th, 2005, 09:23 PM

And Heathrow is the busiest international airport in the world! Much more flights to more places than probably anywhere else!

nick_taylor

June 8th, 2005, 11:02 PM

nah. look up past posts of mine. i've been a detractor of NYC olympics all along. The olympics and the IOC are fucking ridiculous.

Actually, i've wanted London all along, as it is my favorite foreign city in the world, and has most of the facilities being built or already built. Also, it has the square milage, infrastructure, transportation, and delightful people to actually be able to host this event. Plus, i wont have to wake up at the crack of ass to watch the events, especially the basketball games. I have to say that my only concern is attendence, as England is slightly tougher to get to than Athens or Barcelona, and has a smaller population than Australia.

BTW, i watched about 80% of coverage of the last olympics, including mens and womens rowing, mens and womens fencing, mens and womens cycling, judo, etc and other marginal sports. Of course i watched the main events, like boxing, basketball, soccer, baseball, and track and field. I'm a pretty huge sports fan ... in fact i rules about 95% of my life ... my fiancee gets annoyed by it. :)London is perhaps the most connected city on the planet. London Heathrow Airport is the world's busiest international airport and London Gatwick is the 6th busiest. The combined air hub of London (across its 5 international airports) is around 130mppa - more destinations, more carriers and more tickets than any other city on the face of the planet. Then there are three airport express train lines from three of these international airports (of which no city has as many), so for people getting to London from across the world and actually into the city won't be much of a problem whatsoever!!!

PHXbevo

June 9th, 2005, 01:11 AM

i thought Atlanta had the worlds busiest passenger airport with chicago o'hare being #2.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic)

looks like london is #1 for international passangers, which makes sense for an island nation.

still impressive, nonetheless. hope london gets the white elephant.

rantanamo

June 9th, 2005, 05:39 PM

There's not much to fly to in England or the U.K.. Apples to oranges compared to U.S. airports. That's doesn't mean better or more connected. Perspective people, perspective.

BTW, the best bids in the U.S. were both in Texas if they were going simply by best bids.

MoreOrLess

June 9th, 2005, 07:07 PM

There's not much to fly to in England or the U.K.. Apples to oranges compared to U.S. airports. That's doesn't mean better or more connected. Perspective people, perspective.

The original question was whether London would be able to provide the international transport for people to get to the games though.

Really though I think thats largely irrelivant though given that the vast majority of the spectators for any olympics normally come from the host nation. Just a guess but IMHO London could well out do all the other bids in this department as I believe general interest in minority sports and ones in which we would not be pushing for a medal in is higher in the UK than in any of the other countries biding.

samsonyuen

June 9th, 2005, 11:13 PM

^^So why didn't Dallas or Houston make it to the final two? If I remember correctly, NY, SF were the final two, and DC was in the final three?

Crusader

June 9th, 2005, 11:51 PM

If New York drops out of the Olympic race, it would be great if NYC could vote for London. We would sure appreciate it!!

Fear of Heights

June 11th, 2005, 11:41 PM

Some of those stadium capacities are a little outdated. Florida Field, home of the Florida Gators in college football, is closer to 91,000 in capacity putting it in the top 10 instead of 14th. I'm glad pictures of Williams Brice Stadium were recently posted to because it was left off the original list. It holds over 80,000 and is the home of the South Carolina Gamecocks. UGA's Sanford Stadium is also now over 90,000 so it should be further up the list.

On the note of expansion, Bryant Denny Stadium is in the process of expanding to nearly 92,000 by Fall 2006. The endzone closest to the photographer taking the aerial picture of BDS in the above post is the endzone where seating capacity is being added.

Here is a rendering showing different angles of the stadium addition:

www.rolltide.com/Facilities/5083.asp

P.S. I don't think the original poster who started this thread did it to antagonize Europeans in any way. I'm not sure why it has been taken that way. We happen to call "American football", football. It's just what it has been called. I appreciate the athleticism of "World Football" as well but have always known it as "soccer". In fact, I played soccer when I was a kid and was pretty good at it. I vaguely remember scoring 2 goals and drilling the top bar of the goal on another shot when I was about 8 years old.

th0m

June 12th, 2005, 12:10 AM

That expansion of Bryant Denny looks pretty nice, is it u/c yet? If so, do you have any pictures of it?

Too bad they didn't extend it all the way to the existing stadium
http://www.rolltide.com/images/20397.jpg
On this render you can see a little bit of the right side of the existing part, it would only be a little bit more ;) Also, what will happen to the scoreboard? I can see two new videoscreens, but I can't see a new scoreboard.

The entrance will look real grande as well, this already sweet stadium is getting even nicer.

Fear of Heights

June 12th, 2005, 01:56 AM

Those are all very good questions. Unfortunately, I don't know the answers. I totally agree with you on the new upper deck extending all the way around. I really wish they could figure out a way to make that happen but them not being able to do it has something to do with the east side upper deck being slightly separated from the lower bowl. It's kinda hard to explain. I'm not sure exactly where or if a scoreboard will go in somewhere in that north endzone expansion area. There is a huge Jumbotron at the South end of the stadium that can easily be seen and read from anywhere in the stadium though. For that reason, I think they may hold off on any scoreboard in the expansion area. Construction has started but all that has really been done is a small removal of seats at the top of the endzone seating, the scoreboard has been removed, and the foundation and steel pilings are just beginning to be put into place. In other words, there isn't much to see right now. It just looks like a big construction zone. That's about it.

If I knew how to post pictures I'd post a few. There is a really neat panoramic shot from the endzone of the BYU game in 1998 when BDS was re-dedicated after the addition of the East upper deck which increased capacity from about 71,000 to its current capacity of 83,818. The picture is taken from the north endzone (where the current expansion is taking place) and shows a panoramic of a full stadium with the lights on. It's an awesome sight. Wish I could find it and post it here.

TalB

June 12th, 2005, 04:44 AM

The stadium may have been cancelled, but that doesn't mean that NYC still can't have the olympics. Joe Bruno claims that he wants to wait to see if NYC will actually win the bid from the IOC first, then decide on the West Side Stadium. I doubt that the IOC will solely say no to NYC just b/c that stadium got defeated. Believe me, there were other things that would make it loose the bid, so don't say it was the fault of both Bruno and Sheldon Silver just yet.

Mo Rush

June 12th, 2005, 04:52 AM

as much as i would continue to have new york as my seconc choice vote after london, no stadium no olympic games....its just too important of a venue to play around with....

Nephasto

June 12th, 2005, 04:56 AM

160 MM? Big Deal. Thats like the GDP of El Paso, Texas.

thats about like breaking even

And is thata bad?! To break even!?!
They organized some great olimpics and modernized all athens!! And even make a profit!! That's f*u**ing awesome!!!!

I think if NY organized the olimpics you would see this in a completely diferent way...

Sir Miles Platting

June 12th, 2005, 05:20 AM

Good Choice NYC! (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/07/sports/OLY.php)

I bet millions of New Yorkers are overwhelmingly sighing releif at the ridiculous notion of an olympics in the City. WTF does New York have to prove to the world, which is the top, or one of the top 2 or 3 world class cities on the planet. London and Paris should follow suit. The olympics are dead as dead and a monumental waste of money. Let Mozambique host it for the next century, who fucking cares?

Only thing that sucks is that the New York Jets wont get their new stadium on the West Side.
I don't think you have any worries on that score, pal.
NY hasn't got a prayer anyways. Piss-poor transportation facilities, grid-locked freeways and streets, ignorant citizens, are just a few of the reasons why NY is gonna strike-out on the Olympics.
The last time I attended a sporting event there it took 3 hours to get to the Meadowlands from a hotel less than 2 miles from the stadium.
So like I said, you ain't gonna get 'em and you already know it so stop pretending you don't want them coz we all know you're full of shit.

PHXbevo

June 12th, 2005, 09:09 AM

I don't think you have any worries on that score, pal.
NY hasn't got a prayer anyways. Piss-poor transportation facilities, grid-locked freeways and streets, ignorant citizens, are just a few of the reasons why NY is gonna strike-out on the Olympics.
The last time I attended a sporting event there it took 3 hours to get to the Meadowlands from a hotel less than 2 miles from the stadium.
So like I said, you ain't gonna get 'em and you already know it so stop pretending you don't want them coz we all know you're full of shit.

well dont blame nyc because you're too fucking stupid to navigate the subway system.

take your anti americanism elsewhere.

waccamatt

June 12th, 2005, 10:40 AM

Who licked the red off Dames Miles Platting's candy?

waccamatt

June 12th, 2005, 10:47 AM

Here are some more photos of Williams-Brice Stadium at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. Official seating is 80,250 with the largest attendance over 85,000.

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/scar/galleries/HistoricalWBS/scan0006-lg.jpg

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/scar/nonsport/footbl/Stadium-Night200.jpg

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/scar/nonsport/williams-brice-stadium.jpg

Bigmac1212

June 12th, 2005, 09:27 PM

This is another collegiate (American) football stadium that's getting renovated:
http://www.kinnickrenovation.com/dynamic/splash-img/1-img.jpg
http://www.kinnickrenovation.com/dynamic/gallery/166-pic.JPG
http://www.kinnickrenovation.com/dynamic/gallery/64-pic.jpg
http://www.kinnickrenovation.com/dynamic/gallery/65-pic.jpg
http://www.kinnickrenovation.com/dynamic/gallery/69-pic.jpg
http://www.kinnickrenovation.com/dynamic/gallery/109-pic.JPG
Comments?

rantanamo

June 12th, 2005, 10:12 PM

Any renderings of Stanford's renovation? Apparently they are cutting down capacity by 30,000.

rantanamo

June 12th, 2005, 10:15 PM

I like it. What will the new capacity be?

Bigmac1212

June 12th, 2005, 10:34 PM

It says 70,000, although I think that's what Kinnick currently holds.

Bigmac1212

June 12th, 2005, 10:40 PM

Here's the link:

Stanford Approves Renovating Stadium (http://gostanford.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/060705aaa.html)

Here's the only picture I can find:

http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/stan/graphics/stan-stadium-view4.jpg

This renovation will turn Stanford Stadium from the largest stadium in the Pacific 10 Conference to one of the smallest. It won't be the smallest: Reser Stadium, home of Oregnon State, will be the smallest this year.

I don't like the plan, personally. But, hey, there's nothing I can do.

asohn

June 13th, 2005, 12:01 AM

^ Hey, it's better to have 30,000 less seats than 30,000 empty seats.

hngcm

June 13th, 2005, 07:42 AM

Better for Paris:)

I would love to go back to see the olympics:)

th0m

June 13th, 2005, 03:33 PM

Looks sweet, the added pressboxes, and the endzone supersize scoreboard and entrance.

Bigmac1212

June 13th, 2005, 07:11 PM

Even this tiny school from the Mid-America Conference is getting into the act of renovation:
http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/mioh/graphics/yager-artists-rend2.jpg
http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/mioh/graphics/yager-artists-rend.jpg
Here's how it used to look:
http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/mioh/sports/m-footbl/mioh-yager_stadium-200wide.jpg
It looks okay. I just have the problem with that Redhawk logo painted on the seats.

Mo Rush

June 13th, 2005, 07:18 PM

http://www.nyc2012.com/images/hi-res/NYC2012_OfficialEmblem2.jpg

First it was, this:

http://olympics.ballparks.com/2012NewYork/aerial.jpg

THEN:

http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com/jetsstadium2.jpg

THEN:

http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com/newyorkj1.jpg

NOW in the parking lot it shall stand:

http://www.terraserver.com/posters/terraserver_thumbnails/Shea-Stadium-thumbnail.jpg

Sunday, June 12, 2005

New York 2012 Announces Olympic Stadium At Queens Site
Posted 7:42 pm ET (GamesBids.com)

During a press conference at City Hall Sunday night (GMT -5), New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that an agreement has been reached with the New York Mets baseball team to build a new stadium by 2009 that would be converted to an Olympic stadium in 2012, should NYC2012 win the Olympic bid.

On Monday New York 2012 will ask the International Olympic Committee (IOC) executive to modify New York's Olympic plan.

The stadium, to be located in the current Shea Stadium parking lot, would be funded by the Mets and the City would pay for the needed associated infrastructure.

At the end of the 2011 baseball season, the stadium would be converted into the Olympic stadium and the Mets could play in Yankee Stadium for the 2012 season (The Yankees have agreed with this plan).

The International Broadcast Center would be located at nearby Willets Point, and the Stadium would be only 16 minutes from the Athletes Village.

The Mayor said "New Yorkers aren't quitters, we just don't walk away from our future", and although he said NYC2012 could have withdrawn from the race, it was not a desirable option.

"We want to do what's right for New York City."

NYC2012 will ask the IOC Executive Committee for the unusual opportunity to change their plans on Monday.

The Mayor said, "we will move quickly to present our plans" to the IOC.

Although he admitted it will be a "tougher sell than if we had gotten our first choice", the Mayor said "we have to go and play the best hand we can get and play it as well as we can".

He added, "it wasn't our first choice but it sure was an awful good alternative".

Monday, June 13, 2005

It’s Plan B For New York 2012
Posted 12:37 pm ET (GamesBids.com)

A new Shea Stadium, which will be converted into a state-of-the-art 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium in the Olympic Park Cluster, is New York 2012’s plan B announced Sunday. The new plan includes a warm-up track and throwing field which will be located immediately adjacent to the stadium.

Under the modified plan the Main Press and International Broadcast Centers will be located across the street from the Stadium in new structures to be built in Willets Point as part of the city’s development plans for the area.

The Stadium would serve as the site of the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, Athletics, and the Soccer finals.

The Olympic Stadium will be 16 minutes from the Olympic Village, 24 minutes from the Main Hotel Area, and is reportedly served by existing highways and mass transit. The stadium’s location is consistent with the security and transport plans detailed in NYC2012’s candidature file.

The owners of the Mets baseball team would pay for the new 45,000-seat ballpark to open for the 2009 season. Officials did not estimate how much the stadium would cost, and the design was unclear.

The city would pay $85 million and the state would pay a proposed $75 million for infrastructure improvements around Shea, reports the New York Daily News.

If the city hosts the Games the $250 million to convert the ballpark to an 80,000-seat Olympic stadium will be shared by New York 2012, the city and the state, with the state and city paying about $50 million each.

According to the New York Post New York Governor George Pataki and state legislative leaders have all signed off on the 50 million in Olympic costs, but not the $75 million that would go for infrastructure in and around the Mets site, said Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The city council must approve the $85 million the mayor committed to the project.

Mo Rush

June 13th, 2005, 07:27 PM

I have just had a look at the stadium plans, and it reminds me of Atlanta, the same baseball stadium shape converted into an olympic stadium, its like im seeing double, this is just my opinion but that is just not good enough anymore for the Olympic Games.

See the stadium plans and news regarding the new Queens Stadium at this link:

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=51455

Mo Rush

June 13th, 2005, 07:30 PM

Mets win big with new stadium
Jon Heyman
SPORTS COLUMNIST

June 13, 2005

The Olympics would be nice, sure. But blowing up Shea Stadium, now that is a gift from the gods.

Mayor Bloomberg spoke happily yesterday about the city's renewed chances for the Olympics, which are still only one in five, according to my rudimentary math. Actually, the real winners in Bloomberg's fast-made deal with the Wilpons are, in order: Mets fans, Mets players, the Wilpons, Mr. Met and anything orange and blue.

After years of planning and dreaming, the Mets' contract for the new stadium came together in about five days. Mets followers can really rejoice starting in 2009, when the new Mets stadium adjacent to the current dump will be ready, whether or not New York wins the Olympics.

This is the best thing to happen to the Mets since Bobby Bonilla left town. And what's more, the Mets look like heroes in the process. While the city and state will spend about $200 million in infrastructure costs, the Wilpons will finance the new ballpark, which will look nothing like the old one. Fred Wilpon's original design replicated Ebbets Field, and Mets COO Jeff Wilpon said they still hope to "keep most of the motif."

As long as you don't replicate Shea, knock yourself out.

Mayor Bloomberg, perhaps a little giddy and overtired after hopscotching between stadium talks, his daughter's wedding and the Puerto Rican Day parade, praised the Wilpons and George Steinbrenner as "model corporate citizens." (The Wilpons I get, but Steinbrenner did nothing more than offer to let the Mets use Yankee Stadium in 2012 if the Olympics come to New York, something Mets people don't seem anxious to do.)

"Everyone stepped to the plate nicely," Jeff Wilpon said.

This cooperative arrangement came together almost quicker than Jose Reyes flies from home to third after city folks approached the Mets following the breakdown of the Jets' ambitious, expensive West Side stadium plan. Mets people had been talking behind the scenes for months, but the city's need to recast its Olympics proposal changed everything.

If we get two great weeks in the summer of 2012, that's fine. The Olympics is more special and fun than some jaded New Yorkers are making it out to be. But the real prize here is obvious. Starting in 2009, the eyesore at the confluence of the Grand Central, the Whitestone and a million other roads will be no more. You don't have to be a baseball fan to appreciate that.

The Mets needed this new stadium more than they needed their new ace pitcher. Their interesting, improved ballclub doesn't deserve to reside in a decrepit, unimpressive, leaky facility. Even on a good day for the home team, it's slightly depressing that the greatest city in the world has the National League's worst ballpark.

At Shea, there's no elbow room for fans, and that's true whether you bought $60 field club seats or $16 cheapies. The luxury boxes aren't luxurious. The design is Sixties Ugly. And frankly, even on its best day, the whole place looks as if it could use a power washing.

The only real drawback to the new stadium plan in Willets Point is that it's in Willets Point, a point the Mayor addressed by mentioning how the city has plans to revitalize the area. What, he doesn't like chop shops?

It's impossible to predict what the International Olympic Committee will decide July 6. But the agreement announced yesterday looks like a good deal for the city, regardless of whether New York gets the Olympics or not. Someone with a better calculator can take a closer look at the numbers, but it appears the city and state will be kicking in only about $200 million, pocket change in the world of fancy new ballparks.

The Mets are paying most of their way here. "It's expensive," Fred Wilpon said, "but we think it's right for the Mets."

Not only is this the right deal for the Mets, it's an even better deal than the one that got Pedro Martinez here.

Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.